This post was intended as an informative report of police enforcing generally unenforced road laws.
I don't believe sharing such information should be censored or frowned upon given the context.

Sent from my iPhone 6

Well the context to me is giving a heads up to people who are about to break the law , not too. I would understand the context if it was about a road closure, a traffic accident something along these lines.
But to warn someone about helmet checks or perhaps leading to a drug check, not right in my books.
If you abide by the law & stop skirting it you shouldn't worry .

We are all entitled to our opinions no matter how anal thay may be.
I do understand your point, but I'd disagree that publicly documenting an [out of the norm] occurrence, is some how aiding criminals.

Sometimes it's better to take a more coherent perspective on an issue, rather than generalising that all laws are equal.

Sent from my iPhone 6

RJD is perfectly in order to warn us of police presence and helmet checks.
To alert drivers that a helmet check is being held will mean that anyone intending driving that route, having been alerted, for example by this post, will make sure they are wearing a helmet if using that route.

This premise is used throughout the UK by the police and safety camera partnerships to warn drivers in advance that fixed and more specifically mobile speed cameras are being used at times on certain routes to reduce speeding on those routes.
Personally, I see little difference to that here.
By way of example:http://www.safetycameraswestyorkshire.co.uk/locations.htm

So he would be quite correct in advising people of a drug check? Yorkie the law states you have to wear a helmet.

We are not in the UK , we are not any where else. We sit here & being hypocrites about someone dying for not wearing a helmet.
But yu guys find it quite acceptable to warn someone about a check point?

Simple. the law says wear a helmet, what is it you do not understand about that? The wear or the helmet.


To Mr RJ Duncan, not negative at all, but be pro active in wear a helmet attitude instead of just posting hey guys, guess what? a check point.


I find both your arguments quite ridiculous.

Sure you are an individual, you want to tempt fate, please do so, but do not tell me that I am negative when you are warning people breaking the law.
Not so hard to understand from two upstanding law abiding citizens now is it?
Also bear in mind Thaivisa rule # 3.

So next time , please enlighten us with a Breathalyzer checkpoint or something similar, nothing wrong with that .
Nothing wrong with drink driving is there now?
Its Thailand.

Ok Roo, you are just being ridiculous now. The OP wasn't intended as advocation for illegal activity, just an out-of-the-ordinary police presence. As it turned out, supposedly a news crew were filming near the area and the law enforceres weren't enforcing law, rather they were turning people away. Maybe some of your comments should be saved for their actions.

I have also previously stated that "not all laws are created equal", the wearing of a helmet is the burden of the rider and passanger/s. Failing to wear one doesn't endanger innocent third-parties.
I would be totally against someone warning others about drugs & alcohol checks, and I wouldn't give a thought about justifying these activities. So I only ask you allow for some perspective in your assessment of the post's intentions.

Good day to you sir.

Sent from my iPhone 6

Edited June 25, 201412 yr by angiud
fixed quotes

RJD totally concur with your post and, if TV rule 3 has been violated (having read rule 3, I cannot understand its relevance in this context anyway) why was this thread not closed at the outset?

OK sorry, my last post on this thread.

Just a warning to those that may not know :-

1. It is against the law (in Thailand) to leave the house without underwear.

2. It is against the law to drive a car shirtless.

I really hope no one condones such nefarious acts.

Let's just get some perspective people.

Sent from my iPhone 6

RJD totally concur with your post and, if TV rule 3 has been violated (having read rule 3, I cannot understand its relevance in this context anyway) why was this thread not closed at the outset?

OK sorry, my last post on this thread.

Not unusual.

Just a warning to those that may not know :-

1. It is against the law (in Thailand) to leave the house without underwear.

2. It is against the law to drive a car shirtless.

I really hope no one condones such nefarious acts.

Let's just get some perspective people.

Sent from my iPhone 6

It is also against forum rules to troll. Just another perspective.

troll /trōl/

(verb)

To make a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.

I don't think my post mirrors this definition, but rather it is in concordance with our discourse. I merely showed examples of laws which can possess a less black & white view of a specific subject matter.

Sent from my iPhone 6

Edited June 24, 201412 yr by RJDuncan

troll /trōl/

(verb)

To make a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.

I don't think my post mirrors this definition, but rather it is in concordance with our discourse. I merely showed examples of laws which can possess a less black & white view of a specific subject matter.

Sent from my iPhone 6

Absolutely 100 %

troll /trōl/

(verb)

To make a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.

I don't think my post mirrors this definition, but rather it is in concordance with our discourse. I merely showed examples of laws which can possess a less black & white view of a specific subject matter.

Sent from my iPhone 6

erm . . . . is there such a thing as passive trolling?

Just asking . . .

R

troll /trōl/

(verb)

To make a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.

I don't think my post mirrors this definition, but rather it is in concordance with our discourse. I merely showed examples of laws which can possess a less black & white view of a specific subject matter.

Sent from my iPhone 6

erm . . . . is there such a thing as passive trolling?

Just asking . . .

R

Absolutely Rob , 100%

Good and bad can been seen in most everything and judging the future is tricky. If a member asked where they could buy a sturdy shovel from and I told them where (homepro?) only to find out later that it was used to bash someone's head in and bury them, would I have been complicit in their murder?

Really, a very interesting and educative thread.

I got fined for having footpegs down and no passenger...

The 200 baht didn't really bother me, it was the fact that my wife was on the bike when I set off from Tescos !!!

I got pulled over for no seatbelt once in Trat when I WAS wearing one. I just said NO. I was wearing it. I waited them out and after 10 minutes he handed me back my license. Anyone else have experience with just saying no, or driving them nuts by acting like you don't understand, smiling and saying thank you repeatedly? Seems to get me out of many jams.

Edited June 24, 201412 yr by Amavel

Arresting all

Motorbike taxis

Sent from my iPhone using ThaiVisa app

They have never been serious about helmet enforcement, or safety enforcement of any kind on Samui. They are the weakest police in the country, by such an enormous margin. They do the helmet check once a week, once a month, whenever. No consistency, no pattern. Not wearing a helmet on Samui is nearly a death wish, as it is a ridiculously dangerous place to ride a bike. But the police? Enforcement? Please.

Spidermike

Chaiyaphum, Thailand

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Can't you sensible bores just leave it for once? This island used to be great until you lot came along trying to change stuff for the better. Leave the 'law' the way it is ... if you want western grind then go back to it.... but leave things be here before we are all having to swallow health and safelty guff on a daily basis

Driving & police checks are a lottery. You want to take a chance do so by all mean. as for pre warning help save lives as one poster said, what a silly statement

.

You want to save a life ask people to obey the law & wear a helmet. There are no choices here , it is mandatory, just because it is not enforced that doesn't mean you don't have to do it.

But that is common sense & abiding by the law of the land, but what am I saying?

This is something a lot of people on this island lack, common sense & as one poster stated, not fond of authority, perhaps that just shows what type of people they are.

Dear Sir, not being fond of authority is your prerogative, perhaps apply that type of thinking next time you are in trouble & you need the authorities help. Oh no what am I saying? You are one of the tough ones that can look after one self. I pity you.

As for random checks that's what they are, you want to warn someone, please do so, at the end of the day you sound like a little kid at school, when they are all misbehaving & you are the lookout .

That thread does not even warrant all these posts, but I suppose it's entertainment for the bored,so called renegades few to flex their muscles knowledge.

Let it be, ride away, helmet or not Up To You as they say. A gambler? Take the chance.

Driving & police checks are a lottery. You want to take a chance do so by all mean. as for pre warning help save lives as one poster said, what a silly statement

.

You want to save a life ask people to obey the law & wear a helmet. There are no choices here , it is mandatory, just because it is not enforced that doesn't mean you don't have to do it.

But that is common sense & abiding by the law of the land, but what am I saying?

This is something a lot of people on this island lack, common sense & as one poster stated, not fond of authority, perhaps that just shows what type of people they are.

Dear Sir, not being fond of authority is your prerogative, perhaps apply that type of thinking next time you are in trouble & you need the authorities help. Oh no what am I saying? You are one of the tough ones that can look after one self. I pity you.

As for random checks that's what they are, you want to warn someone, please do so, at the end of the day you sound like a little kid at school, when they are all misbehaving & you are the lookout .

That thread does not even warrant all these posts, but I suppose it's entertainment for the bored,so called renegades few to flex their muscles knowledge.

Let it be, ride away, helmet or not Up To You as they say. A gambler? Take the chance.

Im glad you decided to voice your opinion and participate in this " thread does not even warrant all these posts".

You started to make some valid points, but that quickly digressed into a diatribe of bigotry, fueled by a malformed superiority complex.

Your use of [ad hominen] is unwarranted, not useful, and shows your inept ability to engage in debate logically with critical thinking and reasoning.

It is obvious to most of us that there are clear dangers associated with non-helmet use. That isn't the argument here, please stick to the core points of the issue:-

Is it illegal, immoral, unjust or even irresponsible to share such information as in th OP.

I argue that it isn't, freedom of expression, speech and action in accordance with the law is just and should be tolerated regardless of your presumptuous assertions of a foul motive.

Sent from my iPhone 6

Edited June 25, 201412 yr by RJDuncan

I have always warned riders of helmet checks, and I will continue to do so in the future, for the simple reason that they have nothing to do with safety, but, rather, are revenue-generating schemes. When your ticket serves as a 'get out of jail free' card for subsequent stops on the same day for the same infraction, there is no real interest in the well-being of the rider, and therefore a basic pointlessness to the law, and I don't feel I'm wrong in assisting people in avoiding a penalty for a violation of which the local police themselves are often guilty.

Driving & police checks are a lottery. You want to take a chance do so by all mean. as for pre warning help save lives as one poster said, what a silly statement

.

You want to save a life ask people to obey the law & wear a helmet. There are no choices here , it is mandatory, just because it is not enforced that doesn't mean you don't have to do it.

But that is common sense & abiding by the law of the land, but what am I saying?

This is something a lot of people on this island lack, common sense & as one poster stated, not fond of authority, perhaps that just shows what type of people they are.

Dear Sir, not being fond of authority is your prerogative, perhaps apply that type of thinking next time you are in trouble & you need the authorities help. Oh no what am I saying? You are one of the tough ones that can look after one self. I pity you.

As for random checks that's what they are, you want to warn someone, please do so, at the end of the day you sound like a little kid at school, when they are all misbehaving & you are the lookout .

That thread does not even warrant all these posts, but I suppose it's entertainment for the bored,so called renegades few to flex their muscles knowledge.

Let it be, ride away, helmet or not Up To You as they say. A gambler? Take the chance.

Im glad you decided to voice your opinion and participate in this " thread does not even warrant all these posts".

You started to make some valid points, but that quickly digressed into a diatribe of bigotry, fueled by a malformed superiority complex.

Your use of [ad hominen] is unwarranted, not useful, and shows your inept ability to engage in debate logically with critical thinking and reasoning.

It is obvious to most of us that there are clear dangers associated with non-helmet use. That isn't the argument here, please stick to the core points of the issue:-

Is it illegal, immoral, unjust or even irresponsible to share such information as in th OP.

I argue that it isn't, freedom of expression, speech and action in accordance with the law is just and should be tolerated regardless of your presumptuous assertions of a foul motive.

Sent from my iPhone 6

Oh poor little petal got all upset & using a dictionary to vet his anger & with real big words.

Good on you, keep up the good work & the great spotting.Keep us all informed , it makes me feel real fuzzy inside that someone cares enough.

Thank you very much.

xoxoxoxo

Edited June 25, 201412 yr by Pia

Driving & police checks are a lottery. You want to take a chance do so by all mean. as for pre warning help save lives as one poster said, what a silly statement

.

You want to save a life ask people to obey the law & wear a helmet. There are no choices here , it is mandatory, just because it is not enforced that doesn't mean you don't have to do it.

But that is common sense & abiding by the law of the land, but what am I saying?

This is something a lot of people on this island lack, common sense & as one poster stated, not fond of authority, perhaps that just shows what type of people they are.

Dear Sir, not being fond of authority is your prerogative, perhaps apply that type of thinking next time you are in trouble & you need the authorities help. Oh no what am I saying? You are one of the tough ones that can look after one self. I pity you.

As for random checks that's what they are, you want to warn someone, please do so, at the end of the day you sound like a little kid at school, when they are all misbehaving & you are the lookout .

That thread does not even warrant all these posts, but I suppose it's entertainment for the bored,so called renegades few to flex their muscles knowledge.

Let it be, ride away, helmet or not Up To You as they say. A gambler? Take the chance.

Im glad you decided to voice your opinion and participate in this " thread does not even warrant all these posts".

You started to make some valid points, but that quickly digressed into a diatribe of bigotry, fueled by a malformed superiority complex.

Your use of [ad hominen] is unwarranted, not useful, and shows your inept ability to engage in debate logically with critical thinking and reasoning.

It is obvious to most of us that there are clear dangers associated with non-helmet use. That isn't the argument here, please stick to the core points of the issue:-

Is it illegal, immoral, unjust or even irresponsible to share such information as in th OP.

I argue that it isn't, freedom of expression, speech and action in accordance with the law is just and should be tolerated regardless of your presumptuous assertions of a foul motive.

Sent from my iPhone 6

Oh poor little petal got all upset & using a dictionary to vet his anger & with real big words.

Good on you, keep up the good work & the great spotting.Keep us all informed , it makes me feel real fuzzy inside that someone cares enough.

Thank you very much.

xoxoxoxo

Great response, I can only apologise that you found difficulty in interpreting the english language. Perhaps that's why you obfuscate my words and critical opinion bearing as an emotional retort.

Once again, keep your sarcasm and ad hominen to yourself, I'd prefer to debate an issue on it's merits or lack thereof.

Sent from my iPhone 6

Edited June 25, 201412 yr by RJDuncan

Great response, I can only apologise that you found difficulty in interpreting the english language. Perhaps that's why you obfuscate my words and critical opinion bearing as an emotional retort.

Once again, keep your sarcasm and ad hominen to yourself, I'd prefer to debate an issue on it's merits or lack thereof.

Sent from my iPhone 6

Yes dear, thank you.

RJD totally concur with your post and, if TV rule 3 has been violated (having read rule 3, I cannot understand its relevance in this context anyway) why was this thread not closed at the outset?

OK sorry, my last post on this thread.

So glad to see you back sweetie, was getting worried.

Edited June 25, 201412 yr by Pia

As the handbags are out, the topic is closed.