Thailand ranks world no.2 in road fatalities

[leftorright]

44 per 100,000 per year with a population of 67 million makes for 80.8 road fatalities per day on average. This suggests that the roads during long holidays as the current one (so far 260 reported fatalities in 5 days, or 52 per day) are actually relatively peaceful (although those dying in the days/weeks ahead from injuries sustained during the holidays may still help to close the gap).

[cooked]

The Thais: don't care, don't know, don't understand. There aren't more stupid drivers in Thailand than elsewhere, there are more stupid drivers that are still on the road.

[nisakiman]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

I normally dislike those "xx deaths per xx population" statistics, because they are sometimes misleading. You can get a much more accurate picture of the real road carnage if you look at the total population of a country.

For example, Namibia has a population of just 2.1 million. Applying the statistical figure of 45 deaths per 100,000 people to this, we get an overall road toll of 945 people per year.

Thailand, on the other hand, has a population of roughly 65 million, translating into 28,600 road deaths per year.

Iran has 78 million, which considering they have "only" 38 road fatalities per 100,000, calculates as a total of 29,640 road deaths per year.

Suddenly, Namibia doesn't look so bad anymore, does it? But Thailand can certainly shake hands with Iran. They're in the same league.

Eh? So if a country has a population of 10 and 5 get wiped out in an accident, that's better? Maybe you dislike this kind of statistic because you don't understand them.

What are you talking about??? Are you sure YOU understand statistics?

For a country with an assumed population of 10 people (which one?) to have half of its population wiped out in traffic accidents over the course of one year would mean it'd need to have a statistical road fatality rate of either 50,000 people per 100,000 population (if we stick to the deaths/100,000 parameter) or, alternatively, a road death toll of 50 % of the total population per year. Both are ludicrous figures.

The smallest sovereign country on Earth currently is Vatican City with a total population of 839 people (2012 figure). It's actual road fatality rate is 0 people per 100,000.

But even if we assume that 2 persons out of those 839 potentially would fall victim to a traffic accident in the Vatican gardens (perhaps by crashing the Papal vehicle against a tree?), the statistical road toll STILL would be 0 per 100,000 - or if you want to be pedantically accurate, it would actually be 0.01678 people per 100,000. On the other hand, saying that 2 people of those 839 died in a road accident simply would give a clearer picture about the true situation. That was all I intended to convey in my post.

I understand statistics.

If there are two people and one chicken, if I eat the whole chicken and you have nothing, statisticly speaking we have both eaten half a chicken

Whatever the merits of total deaths vis-a-vis deaths per 100,000 population, surely the more realistic figure would be deaths per 100,000 passenger miles travelled. That's how the relative safety of, for instance, air travel vs rail travel is calculated. The 'per 100,000 population' is meaningless if we don't know how many miles those people travel, since the more miles per year you clock up, the higher the statistical risk of your having an accident will be.

[MJP]

44 per 100,000 per year with a population of 67 million makes for 80.8 road fatalities per day on average. This suggests that the roads during long holidays as the current one (so far 260 reported fatalities in 5 days, or 52 per day) are actually relatively peaceful (although those dying in the days/weeks ahead from injuries sustained during the holidays may still help to close the gap).

In 2013 Blighty it was around 4.69 deaths per day (1713 road deaths), similar population.

Really this needs to be based on miles travelled by road and not population. I guess. For a more accurate view of how ghastly road safety is.

[Misterwhisper]

I normally dislike those "xx deaths per xx population" statistics, because they are sometimes misleading. You can get a much more accurate picture of the real road carnage if you look at the total population of a country.

For example, Namibia has a population of just 2.1 million. Applying the statistical figure of 45 deaths per 100,000 people to this, we get an overall road toll of 945 people per year.

Thailand, on the other hand, has a population of roughly 65 million, translating into 28,600 road deaths per year.

Iran has 78 million, which considering they have "only" 38 road fatalities per 100,000, calculates as a total of 29,640 road deaths per year.

Suddenly, Namibia doesn't look so bad anymore, does it? But Thailand can certainly shake hands with Iran. They're in the same league.

Eh? So if a country has a population of 10 and 5 get wiped out in an accident, that's better? Maybe you dislike this kind of statistic because you don't understand them.

What are you talking about??? Are you sure YOU understand statistics?

For a country with an assumed population of 10 people (which one?) to have half of its population wiped out in traffic accidents over the course of one year would mean it'd need to have a statistical road fatality rate of either 50,000 people per 100,000 population (if we stick to the deaths/100,000 parameter) or, alternatively, a road death toll of 50 % of the total population per year. Both are ludicrous figures.

The smallest sovereign country on Earth currently is Vatican City with a total population of 839 people (2012 figure). It's actual road fatality rate is 0 people per 100,000.

But even if we assume that 2 persons out of those 839 potentially would fall victim to a traffic accident in the Vatican gardens (perhaps by crashing the Papal vehicle against a tree?), the statistical road toll STILL would be 0 per 100,000 - or if you want to be pedantically accurate, it would actually be 0.01678 people per 100,000. On the other hand, saying that 2 people of those 839 died in a road accident simply would give a clearer picture about the true situation. That was all I intended to convey in my post.

I think someone does not understand statics.

If 2 died per 839 it would be 0.238% of the population or 1 for every 419.5 people.

Therefore at the rate of death per comparison of population would be 0.238% of 100,000 or 238.

2/839 = 0.238% and to confirm 238/100,000x100 = 0.238%.

Who knows where 0.01678 came from?

Of course you're right. It was a simple calculation error on my part and I stand corrected.

It still doesn't change anything in the fact that very often the total traffic death figures compared to a country's total population give a clearer picture.

[somo]

These stats are indeed misleading.

Thailand has a lot higher % of car ownership than either of the others mentioned.

The relevant stat should be deaths/number of cars not per head of population.

Even that wouldn't show the whole picture.

I have driven here for the last 10 years and although it is clearly more dangerous than many places I am so far accident free so no need to get too excited by these figures.

[wow64]

As bad as it is here you guys should try driving in Vietnam. The only reason their fatalities are lower is lack of cars and fewer roads to speed on. Wait a few years

Driving around Bangkok on a bike and car.. It's nuts. I felt a lot safer on the roads in Saigon. The mentality of the drivers is different in Thailand. Don't know what it is.. No fear? No care for Safety or the law. No idea but it's insane.

I hope we can be world champions next year. Namibia have had the tittle long enough.

Edited January 4, 2015 by wow64

[jaltsc]

"Coming first and third are Namibia and Iran..."

NOT FAIR...Take away the armed rebels along every road shooting at every motor vehicle and the IEDs blowing them up, then Thailand puts these two competitors so far back in the rear view mirror. Of course, no Thai would notice since they only use the rear view mirror to look at themselves.

Edited January 4, 2015 by jaltsc

[Pla shado]

It may not apply to all of Thailand but here in Isaan we presently have lots of first time vehicle owners. While many of us from western countries may have had driver's education and years of experience on the roads and highways, many Thais learn to drive a car or pickup truck at age 30, 40, 50 or older. Those of us, say, 55 years or older may have 40 or more years behind the wheel. There are lots of drivers here who are 30, 40 or 50 years old who may only have 5 years or less driving time. Along with the other factors mentioned on this topic it seems to me that simple inexperience also contributes to accident causes.

[Patje]

Sigh, and the numbers keep rising ..... And we still have to have the Thai new-year ....

[keebone]

The 2013 WHO Report on Road Safety is here: http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/road_safety_status/2013/en/

It makes for interesting reading and details exactly how to get fatalities reduced.

74% of Thailand's road fatalities are in/on/driving 2- or 3-wheeled vehicles. Cars and trucks, not so much!

Exactly!

Where would the US, UK, and most of Europe rank if 80% of the vehicles on the road were 2-wheeled or did not have mandatory airbags?

Way below Thailand that's for sure, just look at the standard of driving here to see that obvious conclusion. Only today I witnessed a woman riding a motocycle unchallenged through a police check point holding a baby in her left arm, no crash helmet of course. Add to the poor driving standards the almost complete lack of vehicle safety maintenance, I'm amazed if I use a Thais motorcycle and it has 2 properly functioning brakes.

[ggold]

I normally dislike those "xx deaths per xx population" statistics, because they are sometimes misleading. You can get a much more accurate picture of the real road carnage if you look at the total population of a country.

For example, Namibia has a population of just 2.1 million. Applying the statistical figure of 45 deaths per 100,000 people to this, we get an overall road toll of 945 people per year.

Thailand, on the other hand, has a population of roughly 65 million, translating into 28,600 road deaths per year.

Iran has 78 million, which considering they have "only" 38 road fatalities per 100,000, calculates as a total of 29,640 road deaths per year.

Suddenly, Namibia doesn't look so bad anymore, does it? But Thailand can certainly shake hands with Iran. They're in the same league.

Eh? So if a country has a population of 10 and 5 get wiped out in an accident, that's better? Maybe you dislike this kind of statistic because you don't understand them.

Eh? Seriously, If you actually took the time to understand what Mrwhisper is saying it makes perfect sense. That is the real breakdown of the stats given in the OP. So maybe it is you who dislikes the stats and have no understanding of the breakdown when given to you. In reality Thailand is second Iran first and Namibia probably not even third depending on the stats for forth, fifth, sixth places etc.

[cooked]

It may not apply to all of Thailand but here in Isaan we presently have lots of first time vehicle owners. While many of us from western countries may have had driver's education and years of experience on the roads and highways, many Thais learn to drive a car or pickup truck at age 30, 40, 50 or older. Those of us, say, 55 years or older may have 40 or more years behind the wheel. There are lots of drivers here who are 30, 40 or 50 years old who may only have 5 years or less driving time. Along with the other factors mentioned on this topic it seems to me that simple inexperience also contributes to accident causes.

Most of us sat in a car listening to our parents swearing, or even our grandparents. Young people don't have experienced drivers sitting next to them when they are 'learning to drive' - which means changing gear and steering, no 'mirror, signal, manoeuvre' stuff and rubbish.

I remember watching many road safety films as a kid in the UK, eg 'don't be an amber gambler', look right, look left, look right again' and others. The Road Safety Council seems to think that setting up something looking like a beer tent in the middle of the road is a good idea. I only ever found one Thai road safety film on Youtube and have never had it explained to me what these tents are supposed to be for.

[apetley]

I don't mean to drag this off-topic. But considering Thailand's ghastly record of road safety, which regular car is the safest most crash worthy in Thailand? Which car are you most likely to survive in?

We need to take action. May as well make this thread something other than the usual sound bites.

Sticks with the M1 Abrahms and you'll be fine.

[MJP]

I don't mean to drag this off-topic. But considering Thailand's ghastly record of road safety, which regular car is the safest most crash worthy in Thailand? Which car are you most likely to survive in?

We need to take action. May as well make this thread something other than the usual sound bites.

Sticks with the M1 Abrahms and you'll be fine.

Are their any domestically manufactured tanks or personnel carriers in Thailand? I find these import duties unaffordable.

[OttoPollmann]

I normally dislike those "xx deaths per xx population" statistics, because they are sometimes misleading. You can get a much more accurate picture of the real road carnage if you look at the total population of a country.

For example, Namibia has a population of just 2.1 million. Applying the statistical figure of 45 deaths per 100,000 people to this, we get an overall road toll of 945 people per year.

Thailand, on the other hand, has a population of roughly 65 million, translating into 28,600 road deaths per year.

Iran has 78 million, which considering they have "only" 38 road fatalities per 100,000, calculates as a total of 29,640 road deaths per year.

Suddenly, Namibia doesn't look so bad anymore, does it? But Thailand can certainly shake hands with Iran. They're in the same league.

Eh? So if a country has a population of 10 and 5 get wiped out in an accident, that's better? Maybe you dislike this kind of statistic because you don't understand them.

What are you talking about??? Are you sure YOU understand statistics?

For a country with an assumed population of 10 people (which one?) to have half of its population wiped out in traffic accidents over the course of one year would mean it'd need to have a statistical road fatality rate of either 50,000 people per 100,000 population (if we stick to the deaths/100,000 parameter) or, alternatively, a road death toll of 50 % of the total population per year. Both are ludicrous figures.

The smallest sovereign country on Earth currently is Vatican City with a total population of 839 people (2012 figure). It's actual road fatality rate is 0 people per 100,000.

But even if we assume that 2 persons out of those 839 potentially would fall victim to a traffic accident in the Vatican gardens (perhaps by crashing the Papal vehicle against a tree?), the statistical road toll STILL would be 0 per 100,000 - or if you want to be pedantically accurate, it would actually be 0.01678 people per 100,000. On the other hand, saying that 2 people of those 839 died in a road accident simply would give a clearer picture about the true situation. That was all I intended to convey in my post.

Pardon.........

May I have missed something.

But in case, if it would really happen that at Vatican City 2 people died in a road accident.

In this kind of statistic, it would be mentioned as 238 out of 100000.

This is a easy calculation method called rule of porportion.

Just try it agian, at the your second paragraph you've started with the right calculation.

The reason why this kind of statistic is not in procentage of the population, it would be a ludicrous low number.

This would not bring the attention to the point of death on the road.

[wow64]

For me as I gather a lot of you have also seen, I have seen so many accidents on the road here. The majority are skooters with no helmet trying to sneak through a red light.. This sounds like a big generalisation but I have seen so many.. Waiting for a little to change just last week at the Belgium bridge wireless road.. 2 guys both going through a red light collect each other both turning opposite ways.. Both no helmet and 1 guys head hit the ground like a watermelon.

I never ever ride with out one.

The car I have is a tank because I need protection from others on he road especially the highways.

Edited January 4, 2015 by wow64

[apetley]

The 2013 WHO Report on Road Safety is here: http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/road_safety_status/2013/en/

It makes for interesting reading and details exactly how to get fatalities reduced.

74% of Thailand's road fatalities are in/on/driving 2- or 3-wheeled vehicles. Cars and trucks, not so much!

Exactly!

Where would the US, UK, and most of Europe rank if 80% of the vehicles on the road were 2-wheeled or did not have mandatory airbags?

Way below Thailand that's for sure, just look at the standard of driving here to see that obvious conclusion. Only today I witnessed a woman riding a motocycle unchallenged through a police check point holding a baby in her left arm, no crash helmet of course. Add to the poor driving standards the almost complete lack of vehicle safety maintenance, I'm amazed if I use a Thais motorcycle and it has 2 properly functioning brakes.

I know several people, including my father in law, who have actually disconnected their front brakes because they think they are dangerous.

When my wife bought her new Mio he made a point of telling her not to use the front disc brake because it was dangerous.

[MJP]

First, second, third . . . tenth . . . we've established it's a pretty darn dangerous place to travel by road et.al.

So how do you minimise the hazard of becoming deceased by way of speeding Toyota Hilux?

Which is the best vehicle to drive? I'll start by saying four wheels better than two.

A discussion of defensive driving techniques would also be handy.

[inwardglee]

Our dear leader knows about it and will do all for the happiness of Thai people. They will get some bicycle lanes on Rattanakosin island and ride their bicycles there happily and smilingly, so to make Thai people happily driving on Rattanakosin island while having a stop-over eating white rice and there is fish in the fields for all of them too, happy peops! Who would not envy them.

[Lingba]

Westerners wear a seat-belt in case an accident will happen.

Thais do not wear wear a seat-belt believing an accident will not happen.

Westerners wear seat-belts because it's the law, and respect the law.

Thais do not wear seat-belts because they have no respect for the law or their own safety.

well said and

not to mention...Most Thais don't think ahead about repercutions, possibilities on anything ...period

[Asiantravel]

I don't mean to drag this off-topic. But considering Thailand's ghastly record of road safety, which regular car is the safest most crash worthy in Thailand? Which car are you most likely to survive in?

We need to take action. May as well make this thread something other than the usual sound bites.

you can get a good deal on one of these

[MJP]

I don't mean to drag this off-topic. But considering Thailand's ghastly record of road safety, which regular car is the safest most crash worthy in Thailand? Which car are you most likely to survive in?

We need to take action. May as well make this thread something other than the usual sound bites.

you can get a good deal on one of these

Is there a dealer in the Roi-Et area?

Edited January 4, 2015 by MJP

[kurnell]

For me the driving here is one the most 'un-Buddhist' things about living in this country. "Me me me, I'm first! I most make it to my destination mili seconds faster than you, out of my way! I'll kill you or die trying to be first!" It makes a mockery of all the lucky charms they plaster all over their cars.

This is a very interesting point. Getting to your destination as fast as possible then having absolutely nothing to do.

[MJP]

For me the driving here is one the most 'un-Buddhist' things about living in this country. "Me me me, I'm first! I most make it to my destination mili seconds faster than you, out of my way! I'll kill you or die trying to be first!" It makes a mockery of all the lucky charms they plaster all over their cars.

This is a very interesting point. Getting to your destination as fast as possible then having absolutely nothing to do.

I think the idea is to get it all over with as soon as possible. Exposure time being a factor in risk.

[kurnell]

For me the driving here is one the most 'un-Buddhist' things about living in this country. "Me me me, I'm first! I most make it to my destination mili seconds faster than you, out of my way! I'll kill you or die trying to be first!" It makes a mockery of all the lucky charms they plaster all over their cars.

This is a very interesting point. Getting to your destination as fast as possible then having absolutely nothing to do.

I think the idea is to get it all over with as soon as possible. Exposure time being a factor in risk.

I've walked behind Thais strolling through the streets and I see no evidence of them wanting to get the walking part over and done with

[Strangebrew]

You think they would get a clue but 7 people on motorbike or entire family in back of pickup driving at 180 klm an hour on bald tires and if lucky weak breaks drinking a quart of leo they would be safe. guess them charms aren't so lucky.

[MJP]

For me the driving here is one the most 'un-Buddhist' things about living in this country. "Me me me, I'm first! I most make it to my destination mili seconds faster than you, out of my way! I'll kill you or die trying to be first!" It makes a mockery of all the lucky charms they plaster all over their cars.

This is a very interesting point. Getting to your destination as fast as possible then having absolutely nothing to do.

I think the idea is to get it all over with as soon as possible. Exposure time being a factor in risk.

I've walked behind Thais strolling through the streets and I see no evidence of them wanting to get the walking part over and done with

I've managed to get 35mph out of Tesco trolley before. It was down the shoes isle, daughters couldn't keep up.

Edited January 4, 2015 by MJP

[bob009]

Not surprised. How most of them ever got a licence I am baffled. The motorbikes are the worst, when they pull up on the inside of you at traffic lights. Just as the lights turn green the turn right in front of you. Or when they create an extra lane on the outside of you at the lights when you are turning right. I have installed a dashboard camera just in case of an accident as being a Farang I will be in the wrong no doubt about that, My wife always asks me why I drive so close to the kerb when turning left. My answer ,no motorbike can overtake me on the inside causing an accident.
It still amazes me that they carry the crash helmet on the handlebars and only put it on if the police are about. I have no pity for any of them injured whilst flaunting the rules of the road. The only problem is they are the ones that cause the accidents that may kill or injure innocent people. The police need to start enforcing the law instead of turning a blind eye.

I wouldnt give most of these kids on motorbikes a licence to drive a Buffalo and cart never mind a bike.

Bottom line is nobody ever tells you how much money it costs a year in hospital bills for all these accidents. Only in life's

[kurnell]

For me the driving here is one the most 'un-Buddhist' things about living in this country. "Me me me, I'm first! I most make it to my destination mili seconds faster than you, out of my way! I'll kill you or die trying to be first!" It makes a mockery of all the lucky charms they plaster all over their cars.

This is a very interesting point. Getting to your destination as fast as possible then having absolutely nothing to do.

I think the idea is to get it all over with as soon as possible. Exposure time being a factor in risk.

I've walked behind Thais strolling through the streets and I see no evidence of them wanting to get the walking part over and done with

I've managed to 35mph out of Tesco trolley before. It was down the shoes isle, daughters couldn't keep up.

I want some of whatever you're on. Which aisle did you buy it on?