Thailand ranks world no.2 in road fatalities

[Neeranam]

^^Some risks are worth taking. Risks like not wearing a seat belt and riding a motorcycle without a helmet are just stupid, unnecessary risks.

What about riding a bicycle ?

[MJP]

^^Some risks are worth taking. Risks like not wearing a seat belt and riding a motorcycle without a helmet are just stupid, unnecessary risks.

What about riding a bicycle ?

Wear a helmet.

Edited January 4, 2015 by MJP

[Gweiloman]

^^Some risks are worth taking. Risks like not wearing a seat belt and riding a motorcycle without a helmet are just stupid, unnecessary risks.

What about riding a bicycle ?

Are you trying to be funny? If so, it's a big FAIL from me.

Do you really ride a MOTORCYCLE without a helmet? Or were you trying to say that you ride a bicycle without a helmet?

Edited January 4, 2015 by Gweiloman

[MJP]

^^Some risks are worth taking. Risks like not wearing a seat belt and riding a motorcycle without a helmet are just stupid, unnecessary risks.

What about riding a bicycle ?

Are you trying to be funny? If so, it's a big FAIL from me.

Do you really ride a MOTORCYCLE without a helmet? Or were you trying to say that you ride a bicycle without a helmet?

Some people don't understand the risks of serious head injury resulting from a fall even from a bicycle.

The reason the "nanny state" in some countries (particularly countries with a national health service free at the point of use) have made it a legal requirement to wear head protection even when riding a bicycle is due to the high incidence of head injury and resulting cost to the taxpayer.

[tingtongfarang]

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.

I think if Westerners didn't have to wear them, many wouldn't.

Some Thais wear seat belts, some don't.

Do you want Thailand to have the same laws as Western countries?

If it did, then it wouldn't be the Thailand I love. I prefer to have the right to drive without a helmet if I want and I rarely do wear a helmet.

Would you like to have to wear a bicycle helmet that Westerners have to?

Would you like not to be able to take your kids for a ride on your motorbike?

Would you like to be fined for drinking a bottle of water when driving?

Would you not like to be able to answer your phone whilst on your motorbike?

Or maybe you just want to change some of the laws to suit yourself.

I live in Greece, and one of the things I love about the country is the lack of nanny-state bullying. I never wear a helmet when I ride my bike - I find them uncomfortable in the heat, they interfere with my peripheral vision (something I consider vital when riding) and they interfere with my hearing, which I also consider an important factor. But more than that, I just love the freedom of feeling the wind through my hair (what little I have left...). I also rarely wear a seatbelt.

I lived in greece 14 years, i seem to remember they were quite good at having accidents and keeping the death toll up, i lost a few friends.

[nisakiman]

^^Some risks are worth taking. Risks like not wearing a seat belt and riding a motorcycle without a helmet are just stupid, unnecessary risks.

What about riding a bicycle ?

Wear a helmet.

You're joking, of course. Bike helmets are for lycra-clad loonies and paranoid nutters. (And people who have the misfortune to live in uber-nanny-state Melbourne.)

There was a syndrome which appeared in the 80s (it actually started earlier, with the seatbelt laws, but had not been given a name at that time) called 'The Volvo Effect', which was that basically when people were driving their Volvo tanks, with the nagging 'fasten your seatbelt' beeps, super-efficient crumple zones, side-bar protection etc etc, they tended to absolve themselves of responsibility when driving in the mistaken belief that they were virtually invulnerable in their supersafe, state-of-the-art Volvos and that all was taken care of. As a result, they had more accidents. In the case of the introduction of the seatbelt laws, it was observed that people started driving considerably faster.

"...the cab drivers were exhibiting “risk homeostasis,” or our tendency as a species to maintain an optimum level of risk in our lives. The theory holds that when we feel safer because of anti-lock brakes, condoms or childproof bottle tops, to cite just a few examples, humans compensate with riskier behavior, such as driving faster, having sex with more strangers or being less vigilant in monitoring children’s access to medicine. The result is the same in many scenarios–the accident rate remains relatively unaffected despite the best efforts of scientists and legislators to reduce it. For Wilde, “safety features” are nothing of the sort."

http://sanjivb.com/article/our-need-for-speed/

In fact you could say that Volvo was the precursor of the paternalistic nanny state, in that it removed personal responsibility (and with it freedom of choice) and devolved that responsibility to itself, or in these days, to the state.

The last few decades have seen an inexorable erosion of personal freedom, all in the name of 'elf'n'safety', or 'security' or 'Public Health'.

This is no accident. Every freedom lost gives the state more control over your personal life.

We would do well to heed Benjamin Franklin's words:

"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

[MJP]

^^Nope, not joking. It doesn't take much of a fall to sustain a head injury and then the taxpayer ends up footing the bill for medical and rehabilitation, sometimes lifelong care.

Feel free to smash your own head into the ground but don't then come to me with a bill for the damage.

[redandyellow]

In 2013, I wrote a ( 500 page ) book called "A Place To Be Killed: Tourism Alert Thailand"

Visitors take more inherent risk in Thailand than back home, and the "My Bpen Rai," fatalistic attitude towards death by most Thais catches a lot of farang off guard..

[Gweiloman]

^^Some risks are worth taking. Risks like not wearing a seat belt and riding a motorcycle without a helmet are just stupid, unnecessary risks.

What about riding a bicycle ?

Wear a helmet.

You're joking, of course. Bike helmets are for lycra-clad loonies and paranoid nutters. (And people who have the misfortune to live in uber-nanny-state Melbourne.)

There was a syndrome which appeared in the 80s (it actually started earlier, with the seatbelt laws, but had not been given a name at that time) called 'The Volvo Effect', which was that basically when people were driving their Volvo tanks, with the nagging 'fasten your seatbelt' beeps, super-efficient crumple zones, side-bar protection etc etc, they tended to absolve themselves of responsibility when driving in the mistaken belief that they were virtually invulnerable in their supersafe, state-of-the-art Volvos and that all was taken care of. As a result, they had more accidents. In the case of the introduction of the seatbelt laws, it was observed that people started driving considerably faster.

"...the cab drivers were exhibiting “risk homeostasis,” or our tendency as a species to maintain an optimum level of risk in our lives. The theory holds that when we feel safer because of anti-lock brakes, condoms or childproof bottle tops, to cite just a few examples, humans compensate with riskier behavior, such as driving faster, having sex with more strangers or being less vigilant in monitoring children’s access to medicine. The result is the same in many scenarios–the accident rate remains relatively unaffected despite the best efforts of scientists and legislators to reduce it. For Wilde, “safety features” are nothing of the sort."

http://sanjivb.com/article/our-need-for-speed/

In fact you could say that Volvo was the precursor of the paternalistic nanny state, in that it removed personal responsibility (and with it freedom of choice) and devolved that responsibility to itself, or in these days, to the state.

The last few decades have seen an inexorable erosion of personal freedom, all in the name of 'elf'n'safety', or 'security' or 'Public Health'.

This is no accident. Every freedom lost gives the state more control over your personal life.

We would do well to heed Benjamin Franklin's words:

"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

I will not comment on bicycle helmets or any Volvo effect but it's just plain idiocy if you think it's fine to ride a motorbike for any extended journey or duration without a helmet. I'm not talking about taking the bike 1 km down to the local 7/11. I myself would admit to doing that as I believe that the risks are so minimal (speed, traffic, road conditions) that I make an executive decision not to wear a helmet. But to make a trip of any significance, where I will be mixing with normal traffic at normal speeds, I will always put on a helmet. It's 2 seconds of effort which could conceivably save me a lifetime of grief.

In another post, you mentioned that a helmet restricts your peripheral vision and affects your hearing. With regards to the first, this is all in your mind - the helmet allows peripheral vision more than what your eyes are capable off. As to the second, it's not what you hear that might kill you but what you see.

[lavezzi]

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.

I don't like being sarcastic but as I did recently pass the thai driving license you are allowed to drive a tank, but be advised that your stopping lights should work properly.

[neverdie]

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.

Sherman tank.

Monster 4x4.

[neverdie]

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.

Absolutely frightening isn't it. There's one born every minute.

[englishoak]

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.

Sherman tank.

Monster 4x4.

One things for sure, its got to have 4 wheels in an accident here or Buddha help you.

I would say most modern vehicles have decent safety standards its the drivers that are the problem.

What id like to know are accident numbers broken down into regions, rural or city motorways or minor roads, time of day/night etc... yknow stuff local regions could look into and help themselves rather than waiting for big gov to do nothing as usual...

Oh wait im sorry i forgot where i was for a moment.

[neverdie]

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.

I think if Westerners didn't have to wear them, many wouldn't.

Some Thais wear seat belts, some don't.

Do you want Thailand to have the same laws as Western countries?

If it did, then it wouldn't be the Thailand I love. I prefer to have the right to drive without a helmet if I want and I rarely do wear a helmet.

Would you like to have to wear a bicycle helmet that Westerners have to?

Would you like not to be able to take your kids for a ride on your motorbike?

Would you like to be fined for drinking a bottle of water when driving?

Would you not like to be able to answer your phone whilst on your motorbike?

Or maybe you just want to change some of the laws to suit yourself.

I live in Greece, and one of the things I love about the country is the lack of nanny-state bullying. I never wear a helmet when I ride my bike - I find them uncomfortable in the heat, they interfere with my peripheral vision (something I consider vital when riding) and they interfere with my hearing, which I also consider an important factor. But more than that, I just love the freedom of feeling the wind through my hair (what little I have left...). I also rarely wear a seatbelt.

Hear hear!

Many of the complainers are old fuddy duddies who moved here late in life and have brainwashed by those Nanny states.

My father complains about the kids not having seatbelts on in the back and me smoking in the house. He used to smoke in the car when we were on holidays so much that the roof was yellow, never wore a seatbelt himself.

How boring a life when they're are no risks to take.

One of the main reasons I stopped shedding a tear when I read about fatalities was when I noticed often people deserved what they received.

Your head has an appointment with either your windscreen or roadway....depending on which device you are attempting to control. Enjoy the trip because the destination is fairly ordinary.

Edited January 4, 2015 by neverdie

[neverdie]

^^Nope, not joking. It doesn't take much of a fall to sustain a head injury and then the taxpayer ends up footing the bill for medical and rehabilitation, sometimes lifelong care.

Feel free to smash your own head into the ground but don't then come to me with a bill for the damage.

The sooner he smashes it in the better. Might knock some sense into him. No doubt a previous Melbourne HWP Customer and knowitall. The highways are full of them, one of the reasons so much revenue is collected. 5555

[kimamey]

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.

The statistics have to be per 100,000 or some other static figure or the countries with higher populations would always look more dangerous.

Although there are no countries with a population of 10 the fact remains if there were and 5 were killed then it would be 50,000 deaths per 100,000 population. It doesn't mean there are 100,000 people or 50,000 road deaths. You could say 5 deaths per 10 population but that would cause problems when dealing with higher populations. It's the way statistics work.

Of course these figures aren't the whole picture. they can be influenced by many things.

Are deaths excluded after a day for instance. The situation in Thailand I believe.

The percentage of motorcycles, which are more likely to involve injury or death in an accident. A good reason to make sure people drive safely, particularly if they are in a 4 wheeled vehicle.

There might be a greater proportion of deaths if the medical care is of a lower standard.

These points need to be considered but when you've got a country with late 20th and early 21st century vehicles using testing standards not seen in the countries where these vehicles are designed in living memory something needs to be done. Unless they are happy with the current situation of course.

[wilcopops]

"44 deaths per a population of 100,000 per year." - this is unfortunately just an excuse for people to justify their own personal prejudices about Thailand.

whereas no-one would deny thatThai's road safety record is deplorable, it is the interpretation and totally skewed conclusions about driving in Thailand that I find so disturbing.

This thread will in the end simply turn into a parde of expat ignorance on the subject (science0 of road safety, many just using it as a Thai-bashing excuse.

[wilcopops]

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.

Sherman tank.

Monster 4x4.

One things for sure, its got to have 4 wheels in an accident here or Buddha help you.

I would say most modern vehicles have decent safety standards its the drivers that are the problem.

What id like to know are accident numbers broken down into regions, rural or city motorways or minor roads, time of day/night etc... yknow stuff local regions could look into and help themselves rather than waiting for big gov to do nothing as usual...

Oh wait im sorry i forgot where i was for a moment.

Not true - it is far more than just the drivers and vehicles contribute heavily to fatalities.

Edited January 5, 2015 by wilcopops

[wilcopops]

As seen by some of the comments already - inaccurate perceptions about driving and just plain stupidity are certainly not the preserve of the people of Thailand. Stupid drivers exist all over the world - just because you come from a country with a lower DEATH rate than Thailand, it doesn't follow that YOU are a better driver....

[Showbags]

Yes you are correct...thailand is number 1 because all the drivers are awesome, carefull, never drink and supremely curteous. ...

[tbthailand]

What a terrible achievement.

We have 2 children under 7 years of age and we also have 2 child seats in the car knowing full well that Thailand's roads are a death trap yet after all my years in Thailand I have never seen anyone else use child seats with their children. In fact it amazes me how often I see a child sitting on the lap of they mother in the front seat with no seat belt on and a passenger side airbag.

I asked my wife's sister who does that as well why she allows it. She told me the airbag will protect them if they are in an accident!! Or the other one I get if the mother is wearing the seat belt is she will hold onto her child in the case of an accident so the child will be safe.

That mentality is why Thais have the 2nd most fatalities in the world.

Education. Education. Education. It is the key to democracy and to safer roads.

we also use car seats. I'll look for you on the road. When I see a car seat, then I'll finally know who djjamie is.

on the more serious side, you are right. there is (almost) no understanding that car seats and seat belts are there for a reason. it's an uphill battle.

[wilcopops]

Yes you are correct...thailand is number 1 because all the drivers are awesome, carefull, never drink and supremely curteous. ...

QED - you clearly have not an inkling about how safe roads are achieved....yet you still seem to think you have an opinion.

[wilcopops]

If you think tackling a SINGLE issue on it's own will have any sustainable effect of road safety in Thailand then you are WRONG...WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! - Until the whole problem is tackled from the bottom up - none of this top-down dictum crap - then road safety in Thailand will be a disaster.

PS - If you don't know what the 5 "E"s are then you are not in a position to comment - you simply don't know even the basics.

[technologybytes]

Thailand's road death statistics are so bad because of motorcycles.

However, statistically you are more likely to be killed in a car in the USA than you are in Thailand.

If you look at the statistics it shows the number of road deaths per 100,000 of population, then look at the percentage of those that are in a car.. shockingly low. Divide the number of deaths by that percentage and you get a figure per 100,00 for cars, do the same for the USA and bingo... There ARE less people killed (per 100,000 of the population) in a CAR in Thailand than in the USA.

[wilcopops]

Thailand's road death statistics are so bad because of motorcycles.

However, statistically you are more likely to be killed in a car in the USA than you are in Thailand.

If you look at the statistics it shows the number of road deaths per 100,000 of population, then look at the percentage of those that are in a car.. shockingly low. Divide the number of deaths by that percentage and you get a figure per 100,00 for cars, do the same for the USA and bingo... There ARE less people killed (per 100,000 of the population) in a CAR in Thailand than in the USA.

unfortunately that is a misinterpretation of the stats - you have to be a lot more critical about it than just knocking off the amount of motorcyclists - i.e. examine every accident and define eve just the main contributing factors - was a 4 wheel vehicle involved was it driver error by whom? how was visibility involved and of course was it head injuries? tese are just a few of the things that need factoring in.

also bear in mind that if you took all these people off their little motorcycles, many would end up in cars - and how would that affect the stats?

PS - US road safety figures are in fact pretty deplorable themselves.

Edited January 5, 2015 by wilcopops

[2fishin2]

Thailand's road death statistics are so bad because of motorcycles.

However, statistically you are more likely to be killed in a car in the USA than you are in Thailand.

If you look at the statistics it shows the number of road deaths per 100,000 of population, then look at the percentage of those that are in a car.. shockingly low. Divide the number of deaths by that percentage and you get a figure per 100,00 for cars, do the same for the USA and bingo... There ARE less people killed (per 100,000 of the population) in a CAR in Thailand than in the USA.

You cannot divide a number by a percentage and get another accurate result. It must always be whole numbers.

Does it really matter if its by car or motorbike or buffalo? Of course less people are killed by car as there are less cars in Thailand where the mode of transport is predominately motorbike.

Semantics brother....

[DM07]

No hub there?

[SOTIRIOS]

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.

...pray tell ......what does exemplify the tenets of Buddhism.....in this country......

[madmitch]

The top three remains unchanged from the last set of figures released. That's interesting as you might expect some movement with statistics such as this.

I would guess that Namibia is number one due to its terrain and standard of roads as much as the standard of driving. Long unpaved, desert roads are the norm with holes and rocks that need to be avoided. I only saw one accident in my ten days there: a pickup that had flipped; no other vehicle involved.

Someone also commented on Vietnam but the standard of driving outside HCM seems to have improved enormously with quite low speed limits being adhered to.

[AlQaholic]

With statistics one can show just about anything one wants from any angle one wants.

Was just looking at some statistics for 2010 on Wikipedia. Some interesting facts: Thailand comes very far down the list if one counts fatalities/100,000 vehicles, there where 92 fatalities per 100,000 vehicles in 2010, compared to Central African Republic that had 13,473 fatalities per 100,000 vehicles or Sudan that had 9,370 fatalities per 100,000 vehicles and Norway with 4.4 fatalities per 100,000 vehicles.

Can't think what you have to do to get 13,473 killed per 100,000 vehicles(Central African Republic), other than deliberately aiming for pedestrians while driving.

Notably total fatalities in Central African Republic was only 644, Thailand 26,312, Sudan 10,935 and Norway 145.

What does this show us? Just about nothing.

Every year there is these statistics coming out from the Holidays with accident numbers on the road and fatalities. But I have never seen any real analysis of the data. I have to assume there is some govt. agency actually analyzing the data and coming up with some useful information, but that they remain unheard for publicity and political reasons.

For example where are the accidents happening? I see one mention of U-turns for example, there must be more of this data, for example are these U-turns on the backstreets or on the main highways? What vehicles are involved, motorcycles, cars, trucks? The list goes on and I think a real analysis will show that the large part of accidents do not happen on the highways during holidays but in the backstreets by motorcyclists.

On my 3 km drive to work everyday in the countryside there are at least one accident every day sometimes three or more (white lines on the road), mostly involving motorcyclists and from what I can see most could have been avoided by better driving habits. Almost all the accidents happen at intersections while turning and at U-turns. The road I am travelling on is a backstreet, not a highway.

As for the driving habits of Thais, I do not think they are driving with the mind on the task at hand. Rather daydreaming or thinking about other things. Thais are never in a hurry to go anywhere. Note the slow acceleration from a red light or the incredibly slow creeping around in a perking lot outside Lotus. The reason drivers eventually reach speeds of 120+ on any road is because they really do not pay any attention to the speed, they just drive as fast as they can without having to concentrate too much on the actual driving. You see many drivers driving like crazy, overtaking and changing lanes just to turn of the road a few km down the road, that is because there is no attention to the actual driving.

Edited January 5, 2015 by AlQaholic