News From Pattaya One - Larger Vehicle Drivers Guilty Always?

[Digitalbanana]

There's a news item from Pattaya One entitle Baht Bus collides with motorbike in Central Pataya killing it’s driver today which states:

>>> Despite the facts showing that the motorbike driver appeared to have caused the crash, Thai traffic laws are such that the driver of the larger vehicle is deemed at fault until they can prove otherwise in Court....

Curious as to whether this kind of law really exists or if the news is wrong?

Link - please delete if not following forum rules... http://www.pattayaone.net/pattaya-news/69395/baht-bus-collides-motorbike-central-pataya-killing-driver/

[Langsuan Man]

Probably not a law per se, but a precedent

[OMGImInPattaya]

Probably more a custom...being that the larger (i.e., more expensive) vehicle is the "poo yai" and should "take care" (make whole) the poorer owner of the smaller vehicle (or their family in case of death). This goes back to the patron-client nature of most social interactions in Thailand, and most of Asia for that matter. That is probably what the writer is trying to say, not that there is any written law to this effect.

[monty]

I doubt the fact that the vehicle is bigger or smaller is written in law.

The problem is in Thailand you have something called "reckless driving with death/injury as result". This is a criminal offense, so if you are charged with it, you will get arrested and bail needed to get out until the court case. Which is why most first class insurances have a bail bond cover, they will pay for your bail...

Now in Thailand, you can be considered guilty of reckless driving even if the other party also committed a traffic offense.

Practical example, another (motorbike) driver changes lanes without indicating, you hit him and he ends up injured. Most likely scenario will be that you will be found guilty under the reckless driving catch all (reasoning is that driving sensibly you should have been able to avoid the accident, especially when the other party is a "weaker" road user), while the other driver will simply be given a 500 Baht ticket for not indicating properly...

Also practically, when somebody gets killed, the other party will virtually automatically be charged with reckless driving, even in clear cut cases where the killed party was clearly at fault. It is then up to the judge to clear you from that charge...

[Hedghog]

Could lead to some interesting roadside discussions.

Mines bigger than yours, no your bigger than me.

Show me.

[anon210]

Well, in France and in Belgium for instances, for insurance purposes, a driver of a 4-wheel vehicle is ALWAYS considered at fault whenever a collision concerns a pedestrian, a biker or a cyclist (all regrouped under that general categorization of "weak users", independently from the fault of said "weak user". The rationale being indeed, that if you adopt a prudent driving, you should be able to avoid the accident. The unspoken logic being also to let the insurance companies bear the weight of the costs related to an accident for someone who often is not as rich as the driver of a car. The law however restricts the coverage to the costs of hospitalization - clothes damaged are not covered, for instance.

In Thailand, I believe the use of a dash cam should help somehow... But be expected nevertheless to have heavy prejudice against you, if it is a biker or pedestrian, no matter what is their conduct (I often have pedestrians running in front of my car at the last possible moment - the key here is to slow down whenever you see such dangers ahead...).

[culicine]

I doubt the fact that the vehicle is bigger or smaller is written in law.

The problem is in Thailand you have something called "reckless driving with death/injury as result". This is a criminal offense, so if you are charged with it, you will get arrested and bail needed to get out until the court case. Which is why most first class insurances have a bail bond cover, they will pay for your bail...

Now in Thailand, you can be considered guilty of reckless driving even if the other party also committed a traffic offense.

Practical example, another (motorbike) driver changes lanes without indicating, you hit him and he ends up injured. Most likely scenario will be that you will be found guilty under the reckless driving catch all (reasoning is that driving sensibly you should have been able to avoid the accident, especially when the other party is a "weaker" road user), while the other driver will simply be given a 500 Baht ticket for not indicating properly...

Also practically, when somebody gets killed, the other party will virtually automatically be charged with reckless driving, even in clear cut cases where the killed party was clearly at fault. It is then up to the judge to clear you from that charge...

Or could it be 'guillt' is decided by who has insurance? Most bike riders do not have insurance; but most often the car driver does. So if the car driver can accept blame, and insurance pay out can be made to the bike rider. What about if you are sitting at traffic lights and a bike rider rams into you, killing himself? Who is to blame then? How could a car driver possibly avoid that accident?

[monty]

Which is the main reason you need to get the insurance guy to handle everything.

Even when just some small material damages.

You might be tempted to admit guilt just to help a poor bloke on a bike, and let insurance cover this, but this can bite you in the behind if a bit later the poor bloke puts in a claim for injuries (back pains,...), which can create big expensive problems if you previously admitted guilt, even that reckless driving charge can come later...

The insurance is on your side, not because they love you, but if they can clear you of guilt, they will save a bundle.

This might sound harsh, but there are quite a few foreigners around, thinking they did the right thing, only to see them being hauled to the cop shop at a later date, when the family of the injured decided to become greedy. Having admitted guilt leaves you wide open for such damage claims and in an extremelt weak negotiating position...

Sent from my GT-I9001 using Thaivisa Connect App

[SGD]

Doesn't always work this way. A bike clattered into me due to their carelessness and yes, the driver, his relatives and all the out of the woodwork Thais wanted me to claim on my insurance when he had none.

Sod that. He and his paid for the repairs. How much it cost to have his bones reset I do not know but that was purely his business.

[mogandave]

While I am certain there are those capable of getting blood from a turnip, it's always seemed too much bother to me. As far as I'm concerned, and assuming no one in injured, the most important factor is how quickly I can get on about my business.

[Digitalbanana]

A few years ago I was in a car coming out of a busy establishment in a small soi with traffic control guards giving right of way to dense traffic at this junction with limited visibility. A motorcycle taxi flouted the right of way guidance and driving on wrong side of road passed all traffic waiting right of way then hit the front of our car exiting the junction following the traffic wardens guidance. Feigning some bruised injury the motorcyclist and us eventually got to meet our insurance rep at the site who escorted us all to the police station in Thonglor. There the BIB give the motorcyclist a telling off, 500THB fine and apology for damaging our car which we had to loose for a weeks repair and our insurance covered. Never was the blame apportioned to the larger vehicle even at the scene of the incident.

[Mario2008]

As freemindxs said, in many countries the rule is that the owner of a car is always financial repsonsible in cae of an excident with a pedestrian of cycle, in some countries also bikes.

I believe this originates from a case in Canada, where the judge rules as such. The reasoning behind it is two fold:

1. the owner of a car has compulsary insurence (as opposed to a pedestrian for instance).

2. with a car, you are a danger to others who are not motorized.

It only goes to civil liability and it doesn't matter who is at fault, unless there are every exceptional circumstances that make that the car owner should not be held liable. (You should think about cases in which one tries to commit suicide by pushing yourself infront of the car). Especially children are protected. For instance in my country a child was waiting for a red light and suddenly crossed the road while the light was still red. The car owner was liable, for above mentioned reasons but also because children deserve extra protection and one should always be careful.

For criminal charges the car owner is needed to be at fault.

I understand Thailand has similair laws, but I'm not sure on the details and if it also relates to motercycles and such.

[anon210]

A few years ago I was in a car coming out of a busy establishment in a small soi with traffic control guards giving right of way to dense traffic at this junction with limited visibility. A motorcycle taxi flouted the right of way guidance and driving on wrong side of road passed all traffic waiting right of way then hit the front of our car exiting the junction following the traffic wardens guidance. Feigning some bruised injury the motorcyclist and us eventually got to meet our insurance rep at the site who escorted us all to the police station in Thonglor. There the BIB give the motorcyclist a telling off, 500THB fine and apology for damaging our car which we had to loose for a weeks repair and our insurance covered. Never was the blame apportioned to the larger vehicle even at the scene of the incident.

It is strange, because the traffic laws say that when coming out from a minor road or a built area you have to give way to all other vehicles. I guess that the fact that guards were regulating traffic made the motorcyclist fall under the "reckless driving" catch-all.

[Jitar]

The motor cycle driving on the wrong side of the road in Mario's incident may have had something to do with it as well.

[anon210]

As freemindxs said, in many countries the rule is that the owner of a car is always financial repsonsible in cae of an excident with a pedestrian of cycle, in some countries also bikes.

I believe this originates from a case in Canada, where the judge rules as such. The reasoning behind it is two fold:

1. the owner of a car has compulsary insurence (as opposed to a pedestrian for instance).

2. with a car, you are a danger to others who are not motorized.

It only goes to civil liability and it doesn't matter who is at fault, unless there are every exceptional circumstances that make that the car owner should not be held liable. (You should think about cases in which one tries to commit suicide by pushing yourself infront of the car). Especially children are protected. For instance in my country a child was waiting for a red light and suddenly crossed the road while the light was still red. The car owner was liable, for above mentioned reasons but also because children deserve extra protection and one should always be careful.

For criminal charges the car owner is needed to be at fault.

I understand Thailand has similair laws, but I'm not sure on the details and if it also relates to motercycles and such.

Quite right about apportioning not the "financial responsibility", but the cost of the accident to insurance, not the owner of the car. In such countries where a similar system is in place, there is also a fund, to which every insurance company contributes, which aims at financing the costs of indemnification for those drivers who do not have insurance... I do not think such a system is present in Thailand.

[Jitar]

Regarding the OP, Thai traffic law does not specifically say the driver of the larger vehicle is deemed at fault. For minor incidents, some of the above posts and my own experience suggest the BiB can support a larger vehicle against a smaller vehicle if the latter is breaking (their interpretation of) the law. However the BiB are not consistent so I don't suggest this always happens.

In serious incidents the stakes are higher and things can get very complicated, the driver will probably need more than insurance alone. Serious road accidents tend to have many contributing factors which the BiB can cloud and hint at responsibility leading to "Sympathy" payment to the party suffering the most, (regardless of guilt) along with negotiation of potential prosecution. These costs are not covered by insurance and often with out allocation of fault.

Many Thai drivers go along with this process, presumably because they do not trust their chances in court.

[anon210]

Regarding the OP, Thai traffic law does not specifically say the driver of the larger vehicle is deemed at fault. For minor incidents, some of the above posts and my own experience suggest the BiB can support a larger vehicle against a smaller vehicle if the latter is breaking (their interpretation of) the law. However the BiB are not consistent so I don't suggest this always happens.

In serious incidents the stakes are higher and things can get very complicated, the driver will probably need more than insurance alone. Serious road accidents tend to have many contributing factors which the BiB can cloud and hint at responsibility leading to "Sympathy" payment to the party suffering the most, (regardless of guilt) along with negotiation of potential prosecution. These costs are not covered by insurance and often with out allocation of fault.

Many Thai drivers go along with this process, presumably because they do not trust their chances in court.

I agree with the distrust of court proceedings... There is also an Asian tradition of mediation and settlement out of court which interferes and tries to privilege solutions offering "harmony" (except that when the party at fault becomes greedy, the equilibrium is again upset!).

[VocalNeal]

The norm in Indonesia is might has right.

But in the case of an accident the larger vehicle is always assumed to be at fault.

So it is a self regulating system of sorts.