Thailand ranks world no.2 in road fatalities

[wilcopops]

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

Too many cars already and not enough drivers with a license/common sense. My wife had a license, could not drive, but always gave me driving instructions. Of course I only had 50 yrs driving experience LOL. She is now working on her "parking license" she already has a left and right turn license LOL. I also learned that most Thai's with a car older then 3 yrs do not have insurance. hmmmmmm

hugely vague and unverifyable claims - try defing "common sense" - don't bother, it can't be done

[wilcopops]

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

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.

again basically no knowledge of the science of road safety. Those who think that mass is the solution are missing out. The primary concern in a collision is impact absorption.

I think a Sherman tank would do pretty well without collision absorption.

Although trying to be facetious, you are in fact applying totally the wrong principles to road safety - you don't show any understanding of the basics.

[wilcopops]

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.

On my second trip here I witnessed the most horrific accident I have ever seen when a pickup crashed into the back of another stationary one waiting to turn right. Counted 7 bodies 2 of which were a mother still clinging to her baby.

This photo that I took shows the utter stupidity and total lack of common sense of the Thais. This is obviously school transport, and the school that is supposed to be responsible for the kids in their care obviously haven't got a clue, and nor does the driver. And the kids themselves are too stupid to realise what would happen if there was a sudden stop or an accident. And yet this photo is not unusual. Everyone who lives in Thailand can see this anywhere, every day. By the way, riding in the back of a pickup is actually illegal, but - well. you know.

A classic misinterpretation of the situation.

what you REALLY need to do is explain to yourself why this happens and consider why their "common sense" is not the same as yours....

make a list of what you think is wrong and why

[wilcopops]

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.

On my second trip here I witnessed the most horrific accident I have ever seen when a pickup crashed into the back of another stationary one waiting to turn right. Counted 7 bodies 2 of which were a mother still clinging to her baby.

This photo that I took shows the utter stupidity and total lack of common sense of the Thais. This is obviously school transport, and the school that is supposed to be responsible for the kids in their care obviously haven't got a clue, and nor does the driver. And the kids themselves are too stupid to realise what would happen if there was a sudden stop or an accident. And yet this photo is not unusual. Everyone who lives in Thailand can see this anywhere, every day. By the way, riding in the back of a pickup is actually illegal, but - well. you know.

A classic misinterpretation of the situation.

what you REALLY need to do is explain to yourself why this happens and consider why their "common sense" is not the same as yours....

make a list of what you think is wrong and why

[tcris52]

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.

y

Philosophy of Thai driving (and parking).

"As long as I'm not inconvenienced, anything is ok."

[empireboy]

living/driving in Thailand...... It's a high-risk sport not for the faint of heart!

[ebonykap]

I was a bit of a lad as a teenager, I guess we all were to some extent. I had just bought my first car (a Datsun 1600) and was cruising around town with my 3 mates in the car. It was a great night, good friends, plenty of "chicky babes" around to gawk and whistle at. Why the hell would I need a seat belt....no cop, pig, fuzz is going to tell ME what to do.

So, I had been driving around for about 3 hours on this glorious Friday evening, when for some reason I just had this thought "I s'pose I better put my &lt;deleted&gt; seat belt on". Two minutes later, I was distracted by my mates in the back seat, turned around to talk with them and simply forgot all about the road, the car, the driving. I hit a concrete electric pole head on at 60km/hour. All of us had our seat belts on and, other than my cracked knee cap, survived relatively unscathed. To this day, I don't know what force compelled me to suddenly wear my seat belt, but I do know that without it I would not be here today.

After that, in my mind seat belts became mandatory. The first thing i did, before even starting the engine, was to put on my seat belt. And if any passengers didn't have their seat belts on, we weren't going anywhere.

I was a lucky one, I survived. Unfortunately, thousands don't and no amount of telling will affect their behavior. It took this experience to change mine.

[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 ?

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.

What nonsense. you'll be saying next that rugby players should have to wear a helmet like their pansy American football friends. I played rugby for years and got far more head knocks than I ever did riding my bike every day. Actually I only remember on head injury from a bike which was pretty good considering the way I rode my "racer" and the number times I rode it pissed out my head.

Why not ban alcohol too, I fell down many times whilst trying to walk.

[wilcopops]

I was a bit of a lad as a teenager, I guess we all were to some extent. I had just bought my first car (a Datsun 1600) and was cruising around town with my 3 mates in the car. It was a great night, good friends, plenty of "chicky babes" around to gawk and whistle at. Why the hell would I need a seat belt....no cop, pig, fuzz is going to tell ME what to do.

So, I had been driving around for about 3 hours on this glorious Friday evening, when for some reason I just had this thought "I s'pose I better put my <deleted> seat belt on". Two minutes later, I was distracted by my mates in the back seat, turned around to talk with them and simply forgot all about the road, the car, the driving. I hit a concrete electric pole head on at 60km/hour. All of us had our seat belts on and, other than my cracked knee cap, survived relatively unscathed. To this day, I don't know what force compelled me to suddenly wear my seat belt, but I do know that without it I would not be here today.

After that, in my mind seat belts became mandatory. The first thing i did, before even starting the engine, was to put on my seat belt. And if any passengers didn't have their seat belts on, we weren't going anywhere.

I was a lucky one, I survived. Unfortunately, thousands don't and no amount of telling will affect their behavior. It took this experience to change mine.

I ca't drive more than a few yards without a seatbelt - I've worn one even before I drove on the road legally - even though they weren't a requirement. the reason? A bit like yours, I was being driven to school by my dad and we were "testing" a new car he's got from work about 90mph.......all of a sudden a car pulled out right in front of us and my father was forced to swerve - we ploughed across the verge and the car got wedged between a telegraph pole and an elm tree - we were both wearing seat belts and completely unharmed. At first I complained that my collar bone hurt, until I realised what would have happened if we hadn't had the belts on.....i wasn't even late for school! - without those belts we would have carried on at 90 mph without the benefit of the car........

[aledale]

I don't know if someone has already written, but

we understand that thais have no logic on driving, so i don't understand how can it be possible that the compulsory insurance covers till 200.000 baht, if i remember well.

I mean for thai insurance rules are there only 2 chance: or live or die, not injured ?

Who covers the costs of hospital if thai salary is only 10.000/15.000 ?

Why doesn't the government introduce driving lessons in the schools? There are millions of children with motorbikes....

[wilcopops]

^^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."

again your use of the word "tank' shows you don't understand how thw Volvo was constructed or even the most basic principles of road safety.

[wilcopops]

^^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."

...... your use of the word "tank' shows you don't understand how thw Volvo was constructed or even the most basic principles of road safety.

Edited January 5, 2015 by wilcopops

[wilcopops]

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.

What nonsense. you'll be saying next that rugby players should have to wear a helmet like their pansy American football friends. I played rugby for years and got far more head knocks than I ever did riding my bike every day. Actually I only remember on head injury from a bike which was pretty good considering the way I rode my "racer" and the number times I rode it pissed out my head.

Why not ban alcohol too, I fell down many times whilst trying to walk.

I'd say the effects of not wearing protective headgear are all too apparent here!

[Neeranam]

I was a bit of a lad as a teenager, I guess we all were to some extent. I had just bought my first car (a Datsun 1600) and was cruising around town with my 3 mates in the car. It was a great night, good friends, plenty of "chicky babes" around to gawk and whistle at. Why the hell would I need a seat belt....no cop, pig, fuzz is going to tell ME what to do.

So, I had been driving around for about 3 hours on this glorious Friday evening, when for some reason I just had this thought "I s'pose I better put my <deleted> seat belt on". Two minutes later, I was distracted by my mates in the back seat, turned around to talk with them and simply forgot all about the road, the car, the driving. I hit a concrete electric pole head on at 60km/hour. All of us had our seat belts on and, other than my cracked knee cap, survived relatively unscathed. To this day, I don't know what force compelled me to suddenly wear my seat belt, but I do know that without it I would not be here today.

After that, in my mind seat belts became mandatory. The first thing i did, before even starting the engine, was to put on my seat belt. And if any passengers didn't have their seat belts on, we weren't going anywhere.

I was a lucky one, I survived. Unfortunately, thousands don't and no amount of telling will affect their behavior. It took this experience to change mine.

Good luck, or is it? Do you believe in fate?

You sound like 2 of my old mates who never moved until everyone was belted up and guess what, I saw them one songkran in the back of a pickup truck with their kids aged 3 or 4 to 10. Bloody hypocrites! Why not tell Thais to ban songkran?

Thai people have a saying which is "arai ja gerd gaw hai mun gerd" which translates to "whatever happens is meant to happen". Similar to "que sara sara, whatever will be will be" which many Westerners know and believe - but who has the biggest faith? Thais by a long way have a better understanding of the universe and frankly for farang to come along and try to tell them to change their ways is arrogant. I believe that many "primitive" cultures(according to the West) are much more clued, like the Red Indians etc.

[how241]

Looks like Thailand is striving to be the HUB of road fatalities - finally, an achievable hub!

Hub of Hubs...

[masuk]

"Analysts said the high number of fatalities not only resulted from motorists’ carelessness alone." Off course not. Government negligence is the main reason.

Being side-swiped while doing an illegal U-turn in harmful to health, so is driving around on a motorbike with no helmet.

Both problems could be reduced by a certain group in brown uniforms, getting off their rear ends and actually policing the two biggest problems, apart from driving under the influence of whatever they're taking..

[masuk]

I was a bit of a lad as a teenager, I guess we all were to some extent. I had just bought my first car (a Datsun 1600) and was cruising around town with my 3 mates in the car. It was a great night, good friends, plenty of "chicky babes" around to gawk and whistle at. Why the hell would I need a seat belt....no cop, pig, fuzz is going to tell ME what to do.

So, I had been driving around for about 3 hours on this glorious Friday evening, when for some reason I just had this thought "I s'pose I better put my <deleted> seat belt on". Two minutes later, I was distracted by my mates in the back seat, turned around to talk with them and simply forgot all about the road, the car, the driving. I hit a concrete electric pole head on at 60km/hour. All of us had our seat belts on and, other than my cracked knee cap, survived relatively unscathed. To this day, I don't know what force compelled me to suddenly wear my seat belt, but I do know that without it I would not be here today.

After that, in my mind seat belts became mandatory. The first thing i did, before even starting the engine, was to put on my seat belt. And if any passengers didn't have their seat belts on, we weren't going anywhere.

I was a lucky one, I survived. Unfortunately, thousands don't and no amount of telling will affect their behavior. It took this experience to change mine.

Good luck, or is it? Do you believe in fate?

You sound like 2 of my old mates who never moved until everyone was belted up and guess what, I saw them one songkran in the back of a pickup truck with their kids aged 3 or 4 to 10. Bloody hypocrites! Why not tell Thais to ban songkran?

Thai people have a saying which is "arai ja gerd gaw hai mun gerd" which translates to "whatever happens is meant to happen". Similar to "que sara sara, whatever will be will be" which many Westerners know and believe - but who has the biggest faith? Thais by a long way have a better understanding of the universe and frankly for farang to come along and try to tell them to change their ways is arrogant. I believe that many "primitive" cultures(according to the West) are much more clued, like the Red Indians etc.

[ThaiUser]

I was a bit of a lad as a teenager, I guess we all were to some extent. I had just bought my first car (a Datsun 1600) and was cruising around town with my 3 mates in the car. It was a great night, good friends, plenty of "chicky babes" around to gawk and whistle at. Why the hell would I need a seat belt....no cop, pig, fuzz is going to tell ME what to do.

So, I had been driving around for about 3 hours on this glorious Friday evening, when for some reason I just had this thought "I s'pose I better put my <deleted> seat belt on". Two minutes later, I was distracted by my mates in the back seat, turned around to talk with them and simply forgot all about the road, the car, the driving. I hit a concrete electric pole head on at 60km/hour. All of us had our seat belts on and, other than my cracked knee cap, survived relatively unscathed. To this day, I don't know what force compelled me to suddenly wear my seat belt, but I do know that without it I would not be here today.

After that, in my mind seat belts became mandatory. The first thing i did, before even starting the engine, was to put on my seat belt. And if any passengers didn't have their seat belts on, we weren't going anywhere.

I was a lucky one, I survived. Unfortunately, thousands don't and no amount of telling will affect their behavior. It took this experience to change mine.

Good luck, or is it? Do you believe in fate?

You sound like 2 of my old mates who never moved until everyone was belted up and guess what, I saw them one songkran in the back of a pickup truck with their kids aged 3 or 4 to 10. Bloody hypocrites! Why not tell Thais to ban songkran?

Thai people have a saying which is "arai ja gerd gaw hai mun gerd" which translates to "whatever happens is meant to happen". Similar to "que sara sara, whatever will be will be" which many Westerners know and believe - but who has the biggest faith? Thais by a long way have a better understanding of the universe and frankly for farang to come along and try to tell them to change their ways is arrogant. I believe that many "primitive" cultures(according to the West) are much more clued, like the Red Indians etc.

I don’t agree with you that Thais have a better understanding of the universe maybe due to the fact that in my lifetime I have travelled a lot and seen different countries and cultures.

Road accidents in Thailand are certainly not attributed to fate but are connected to the behaviour of people and the conditions of the roads. It doesn’t help to go into frenzy and bash foreigners instead it is more appropriate to look at the problems and trying to find a way to solve them.

From the comments on this forum you can see that I, most of the time object to comments that generalise Thai behaviour and try to put a label on all Thai people. However in doing so I have to grant the same courtesy to foreigners that are guests in our country and if they have a valid point I have to accept it.

[doodle]

I just loved the juxtoposition of headlines on my Thaivisa.com news email:

"Thailand ranked as one of world’s best places to retire in 2015; Thailand ranks world no.2 in road fatalities;"

Is someone trying to tell us older members something?

Edited January 5, 2015 by doodle

[ThaiUser]

Only a dead Thai is a good driver. He can't harm anybody.

Go for number one Thailand !!!

I hold a Thai, UK and US driving license. Reading your comment I wonder why they haven’t been revoked.

[Moonlover]

<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 do recall a few years ago when the world rankings where. No 1 Eritrea. No 2 Cook Islands, No 3 Egypt (where I was then living, hence the interest)

You did notice that did you? The Cook Islands at number 2! With a population of only 14,000 or so, they only needed 6 deaths to make it to No 2, and indeed that is what happened. So yes the number of deaths per thousand can sometimes throw up some strange anomalies, but it is still regarded as the best way of making comparisons between countries.

Edited January 5, 2015 by Moonlover

[Johnny S]

Thai cant qualify for Worldcup in anything but a silvermedal in carkilling is something to be proud of - like the Suzukicup-win, ha ha

[neverdie]

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

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.

again basically no knowledge of the science of road safety. Those who think that mass is the solution are missing out. The primary concern in a collision is impact absorption.

I think a Sherman tank would do pretty well without collision absorption.

Yeah thanks...u took the weds right out of my mouth . The post was in jest & mr no humor missed the crack.

I also have visions of a monster 4x4 downtown bkk peak hour

[Jonmarleesco]

Not much difference between 44 and 45. And Namibia should probably read Narnia.

[neverdie]

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

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.

again basically no knowledge of the science of road safety. Those who think that mass is the solution are missing out. The primary concern in a collision is impact absorption.

I think a Sherman tank would do pretty well without collision absorption.

It is obvious that you think that - whereas in reality the absorption ability of a Sherman tank is as near as it gets to NIL. You need to read up on what happens in a collision rather than make facetious comments about Sherman tanks.

55555 you have been told mr alqaholic lol

[mathias67]

Coming second to Namibia they ought to be ashamed of themselves..........surely they could have tried harder for No 1 spot.

Don't worry it won't be number 2 much longer. Just look at deaths/accidents ove the past 7 day holiday period, well up on 2013

[Partigo]

All familiar no doubt with the concept that 'a strength entails a weakness'.............................................well, don't want to get overly philosophical, but has anyone posited that this is a correlate of a positive?....................& PLEASE: people don't respect the law in the 'West' - they kowtow to it out of fear.

[ttthailand]

A few days ago on my way back to Bkk from Chiang Mai I saw a pickup run into the front end of another pickup cause a lot of damage. The guy at fault paused for a second and then took off almost causing another accident, hit and run. I have seen many accidents happen in Thailand but the worst I saw were in the UAE. Driving daily from Dubai to Abu Dhabi at 150km (normal speed) I would see one about once a week. I would also see cars smashed along the road 3 or 4 daily. Some were really bad ! If it rained you would see sometimes 20 or more accidents that just happened. I have seen pile ups involving many cars during fog or dust storms. That road has to be the worst in the world, much worse than Thailand.

[HerbalEd]

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.

It's not "misleading" at all. Actually the road deaths per 100K people statistic give you a much more realistic picture of a country's accident rate and the quality of its drivers.

E.g., when comparing a low-pouplation country and a high-population country that have the same deaths per 100K, you can't deduce that the high-population country is worse because they have more road deaths than the low-population country.

[HerbalEd]

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.

Oh ... so actually you do "mean to drag this off-topic."