Pics of car accidents in Phuket

[steelepulse]

@ stevenl

Wow - none of the things you mention address who is actually at fault in the accident.

Even you are suggesting the farang will be deemed to be at fault, due to the things you mention?

Yes, that's about as far as the investigation into the accident will go.

Well, of course the first thing is: in principle he who is at fault will be blamed, but we had passed that stage already in the discussion. The second thing is, that sometimes there are exceptions here: in the rare occasion that the foreigner (not farang, nothing to do with skin colour) is blamed the end result will depend on "tourist or not, own insurance representative on the spot, Thai speaking yes or no, Thai society changing in this respect, guilability of the persons involved to sign something they don't agree to, etc."

All a far, far cry from "Farang always in the wrong, and must pay for everything and everybody".

So, tell me, Somchai with his somtam cart crashes into you - automatically, who do you think the police are going to look at getting payment from, whether rightly, or wrongly, knowing Somchai hasn't got two baht to his name?

Call insurance and let them deal with it. Up to them if they pay out or not.

What happens when Somchai has no insurance and your insurance company decides that they don't want to pay out, instead pursue Somchai through the courts, all the while the coppers are suggesting just to forget about it?

[NamKangMan]

@ stevenl

Wow - none of the things you mention address who is actually at fault in the accident.

Even you are suggesting the farang will be deemed to be at fault, due to the things you mention?

Yes, that's about as far as the investigation into the accident will go.

Well, of course the first thing is: in principle he who is at fault will be blamed, but we had passed that stage already in the discussion. The second thing is, that sometimes there are exceptions here: in the rare occasion that the foreigner (not farang, nothing to do with skin colour) is blamed the end result will depend on "tourist or not, own insurance representative on the spot, Thai speaking yes or no, Thai society changing in this respect, guilability of the persons involved to sign something they don't agree to, etc."

All a far, far cry from "Farang always in the wrong, and must pay for everything and everybody".

So, tell me, Somchai with his somtam cart crashes into you - automatically, who do you think the police are going to look at getting payment from, whether rightly, or wrongly, knowing Somchai hasn't got two baht to his name?

Want me to repeat again and again? He who is to blame. And that is me speaking from experience.

"He who is to blame." - that's not the many experiences I have read about, and that has be related to me by others.

Lucky for you, that has been your experience, that doesn't mean it's the norm.

[stevenl]

Well, of course the first thing is: in principle he who is at fault will be blamed, but we had passed that stage already in the discussion. The second thing is, that sometimes there are exceptions here: in the rare occasion that the foreigner (not farang, nothing to do with skin colour) is blamed the end result will depend on "tourist or not, own insurance representative on the spot, Thai speaking yes or no, Thai society changing in this respect, guilability of the persons involved to sign something they don't agree to, etc."

All a far, far cry from "Farang always in the wrong, and must pay for everything and everybody".

So, tell me, Somchai with his somtam cart crashes into you - automatically, who do you think the police are going to look at getting payment from, whether rightly, or wrongly, knowing Somchai hasn't got two baht to his name?

Call insurance and let them deal with it. Up to them if they pay out or not.

What happens when Somchai has no insurance and your insurance company decides that they don't want to pay out, instead pursue Somchai through the courts, all the while the coppers are suggesting just to forget about it?

Up to the insurance company, doesn't matter at all to you.

[NamKangMan]

@ stevenl

Wow - none of the things you mention address who is actually at fault in the accident.

Even you are suggesting the farang will be deemed to be at fault, due to the things you mention?

Yes, that's about as far as the investigation into the accident will go.

Well, of course the first thing is: in principle he who is at fault will be blamed, but we had passed that stage already in the discussion. The second thing is, that sometimes there are exceptions here: in the rare occasion that the foreigner (not farang, nothing to do with skin colour) is blamed the end result will depend on "tourist or not, own insurance representative on the spot, Thai speaking yes or no, Thai society changing in this respect, guilability of the persons involved to sign something they don't agree to, etc."

All a far, far cry from "Farang always in the wrong, and must pay for everything and everybody".

So, tell me, Somchai with his somtam cart crashes into you - automatically, who do you think the police are going to look at getting payment from, whether rightly, or wrongly, knowing Somchai hasn't got two baht to his name?

Call insurance and let them deal with it. Up to them if they pay out or not.

And for those riding a motorbike????

[NamKangMan]

@ stevenl

So, you are saying it has never happened. It's an urban myth.

[stevenl]

@ stevenl

So, you are saying it has never happened. It's an urban myth.

My last word on this: the reality and my experience are a far cry from your statement "Farang always in the wrong, and must pay for everything and everybody".

[steelepulse]

>>Up to the insurance company, doesn't matter at all to you.

So let me get this straight. Somchai hits someone, has no insurance, yet the punters insurance refuses to pay out until they pursue this matter in court. Thepunter would be stuffed as insurance deems they don't want to pay out due to this being Somchai's fault. How does this not matter to the punter?

[stevenl]

>>Up to the insurance company, doesn't matter at all to you.

So let me get this straight. Somchai hits someone, has no insurance, yet the punters insurance refuses to pay out until they pursue this matter in court. Thepunter would be stuffed as insurance deems they don't want to pay out due to this being Somchai's fault. How does this not matter to the punter?

Not possible, (first class) insurance has to and will pay the punter. How and when they recuperate the money is up to them.

[NamKangMan]

@ stevenl

So, you are saying it has never happened. It's an urban myth.

My last word on this: the reality and my experience are a far cry from your statement "Farang always in the wrong, and must pay for everything and everybody".

Obviously, you are focusing on the use of the word "always" in my post.

I concede it may not "always" be the farang at fault, when he was clearly not. It was meant in jest.

However, for you allude to it never happening, or it being "bar stool talk" is totally misleading, when it has happened, and will continue to happen in the future.

[NamKangMan]

>>Up to the insurance company, doesn't matter at all to you.

So let me get this straight. Somchai hits someone, has no insurance, yet the punters insurance refuses to pay out until they pursue this matter in court. Thepunter would be stuffed as insurance deems they don't want to pay out due to this being Somchai's fault. How does this not matter to the punter?

Not possible, (first class) insurance has to and will pay the punter. How and when they recuperate the money is up to them.

For motorbikes????

I can see why the BiB would lay blame on a farang with first class insurance. That way, Somchai gets his damage fixed, and so does the farang, with the insurance company paying. Doesn't make it right though.

Edited February 20, 2015 by NamKangMan

[steelepulse]

>>Up to the insurance company, doesn't matter at all to you.

So let me get this straight. Somchai hits someone, has no insurance, yet the punters insurance refuses to pay out until they pursue this matter in court. Thepunter would be stuffed as insurance deems they don't want to pay out due to this being Somchai's fault. How does this not matter to the punter?

Not possible, (first class) insurance has to and will pay the punter. How and when they recuperate the money is up to them.

What about older and high value cars that can't get first class insurance? Let's say a late 90's Porsche 911 996 for debates sake. Even though punter is still paying 35K year, he doesn't get first class, Is insurance still going to pay out? What about the case of when people have the minimum, yet Somchai is at fault?

[stevenl]

>>Up to the insurance company, doesn't matter at all to you.

So let me get this straight. Somchai hits someone, has no insurance, yet the punters insurance refuses to pay out until they pursue this matter in court. Thepunter would be stuffed as insurance deems they don't want to pay out due to this being Somchai's fault. How does this not matter to the punter?

Not possible, (first class) insurance has to and will pay the punter. How and when they recuperate the money is up to them.

What about older and high value cars that can't get first class insurance? Let's say a late 90's Porsche 911 996 for debates sake. Even though punter is still paying 35K year, he doesn't get first class, Is insurance still going to pay out? What about the case of when people have the minimum, yet Somchai is at fault?

What are you debating? You go from one example to the next, completely different example since completely different insurance coverage, to try to prove what point? To remind you, the discussion was about "Farang always in the wrong, and must pay for everything and everybody".

But I'll repeat myself again: he who is to blame will get the blame.

Edited February 20, 2015 by stevenl

[stevenl]

@ stevenl

So, you are saying it has never happened. It's an urban myth.

My last word on this: the reality and my experience are a far cry from your statement "Farang always in the wrong, and must pay for everything and everybody".

Obviously, you are focusing on the use of the word "always" in my post.

I concede it may not "always" be the farang at fault, when he was clearly not. It was meant in jest.

However, for you allude to it never happening, or it being "bar stool talk" is totally misleading, when it has happened, and will continue to happen in the future.

Where did I say it is never happening?

See e.g. this post, "Well, of course the first thing is: in principle he who is at fault will be blamed, but we had passed that stage already in the discussion. The second thing is, that sometimes there are exceptions here: in the rare occasion that the foreigner (not farang, nothing to do with skin colour) is blamed the end result will depend on "tourist or not, own insurance representative on the spot, Thai speaking yes or no, Thai society changing in this respect, guilability of the persons involved to sign something they don't agree to, etc.""

This is the problem with any discussion with you: you claim something, after much discussion your say you did not mean it the way you wrote it, and then you start claiming others have said things which they have not.

[NamKangMan]

@ stevenl

So, you are saying it has never happened. It's an urban myth.

My last word on this: the reality and my experience are a far cry from your statement "Farang always in the wrong, and must pay for everything and everybody".

Obviously, you are focusing on the use of the word "always" in my post.

I concede it may not "always" be the farang at fault, when he was clearly not. It was meant in jest.

However, for you allude to it never happening, or it being "bar stool talk" is totally misleading, when it has happened, and will continue to happen in the future.

Where did I say it is never happening?

See e.g. this post, "Well, of course the first thing is: in principle he who is at fault will be blamed, but we had passed that stage already in the discussion. The second thing is, that sometimes there are exceptions here: in the rare occasion that the foreigner (not farang, nothing to do with skin colour) is blamed the end result will depend on "tourist or not, own insurance representative on the spot, Thai speaking yes or no, Thai society changing in this respect, guilability of the persons involved to sign something they don't agree to, etc.""

This is the problem with any discussion with you: you claim something, after much discussion your say you did not mean it the way you wrote it, and then you start claiming others have said things which they have not.

"Where did I say it is never happening?" - so, you admit it does happen. Great, for a minute there, I thought you were suggesting we have an honest, non-racist and competent police service on Phuket.

So, all there is to discuss now is how bad is this scam against foreigners.

At a guess, note the "guess" - I would say out of 100 crashes that is the fault of a Thai, the foreigner would get the blame, unjustly, for about 50 of them. So, about 50% of the time.

I'm sure you have a lot lower figure.

Now, as to problems having a discussion with me, well, that really seems to be just YOUR problem.

When reading your posts, I make an allowance for the fact you have a business here, therefore, do not post anything negative about Phuket, and that has nothing to do with having a positive outlook on life, and all to do with being in business here.

[steelepulse]

>>Up to the insurance company, doesn't matter at all to you.

So let me get this straight. Somchai hits someone, has no insurance, yet the punters insurance refuses to pay out until they pursue this matter in court. Thepunter would be stuffed as insurance deems they don't want to pay out due to this being Somchai's fault. How does this not matter to the punter?

Not possible, (first class) insurance has to and will pay the punter. How and when they recuperate the money is up to them.

What about older and high value cars that can't get first class insurance? Let's say a late 90's Porsche 911 996 for debates sake. Even though punter is still paying 35K year, he doesn't get first class, Is insurance still going to pay out? What about the case of when people have the minimum, yet Somchai is at fault?

What are you debating? You go from one example to the next, completely different example since completely different insurance coverage, to try to prove what point? To remind you, the discussion was about "Farang always in the wrong, and must pay for everything and everybody".

But I'll repeat myself again: he who is to blame will get the blame.

I'm not going from one example to the next, I never brought up first class insurance. Only thing I've inquired about is what happens when Somchai has no insurance and the punters insurance refuses to pay until they get a legal settlement. There are plenty of cars on the road with no first class insurance, so I wanted to know what would happen to the farang driver who was not in the wrong, and their insurance wouldn't pay until they had a legal settlement with Somchai.

s

[stevenl]

Not possible, (first class) insurance has to and will pay the punter. How and when they recuperate the money is up to them.

What about older and high value cars that can't get first class insurance? Let's say a late 90's Porsche 911 996 for debates sake. Even though punter is still paying 35K year, he doesn't get first class, Is insurance still going to pay out? What about the case of when people have the minimum, yet Somchai is at fault?

What are you debating? You go from one example to the next, completely different example since completely different insurance coverage, to try to prove what point? To remind you, the discussion was about "Farang always in the wrong, and must pay for everything and everybody".

But I'll repeat myself again: he who is to blame will get the blame.

I'm not going from one example to the next, I never brought up first class insurance. Only thing I've inquired about is what happens when Somchai has no insurance and the punters insurance refuses to pay until they get a legal settlement. There are plenty of cars on the road with no first class insurance, so I wanted to know what would happen to the farang driver who was not in the wrong, and their insurance wouldn't pay until they had a legal settlement with Somchai.

s

Presuming Somchai has no insurance and is to blame for the accident there are as far as insurance goes only 2 options:

1. The foreigner has first class insurance, so the company will pay the foreigner and if possible try to recoup some of those damages from Somchai:

2. The foreigner does not have first class insurance, so the company will not pay for material damages to the car. There is of course still 3rd class insurance, so that will pay and the company will try to recoup those damages paid from Somchai. Since there is no insurance coverage for material damage he will have to try and get money from Somchai himself.

Edited February 20, 2015 by stevenl

[NamKangMan]

@ stevenl

In both options, I can see why the BiB would think it best to show the accident is the foreigners fault.

Option 1) The insurance company pays for everything, and everybody. No one is out of pocket - just the insurance company.

Option 2) The foreigner is considered rich enough to fix poor Somchai's somtam cart, which would be considerd inexpensive for a foreigner to do, and his own vehicle, so he will be deemed at fault.

I can see the moral dilema for the BiB. Here is a poor Thai, with a wife/husband, possibly young children to take care of, and there is a fully insure foreigner, or a foreigner with enough money to fix a motorbile and pay for a broken wrist and some time off work.

[LivinginKata]

<snip>

I can see the moral dilema for the BiB. Here is a poor Thai, with a wife/husband, possibly young children to take care of, and there is a fully insure foreigner, or a foreigner with enough money to fix a motorbile and pay for a broken wrist and some time off work.

And let's not forget The BiB will get their cut of the money and clear out those tedious paper reports. It's a win win all round. Well, only if the Farang has full insurance

[NamKangMan]

<snip>

I can see the moral dilema for the BiB. Here is a poor Thai, with a wife/husband, possibly young children to take care of, and there is a fully insure foreigner, or a foreigner with enough money to fix a motorbile and pay for a broken wrist and some time off work.

And let's not forget The BiB will get their cut of the money and clear out those tedious paper reports. It's a win win all round. Well, only if the Farang has full insurance

"It's a win win all round. Well, only if the Farang has full insurance" - no win win and no insurance on a motorbike.

My concern is, a Thai crashes into me, hits his head on the road, dies, and I'm up for the compensation to the family.

Refuse to pay, and you sit in gaol until you do.

Edited February 20, 2015 by NamKangMan

[stevenl]

@ stevenl

In both options, I can see why the BiB would think it best to show the accident is the foreigners fault.

Option 1) The insurance company pays for everything, and everybody. No one is out of pocket - just the insurance company.

Option 2) The foreigner is considered rich enough to fix poor Somchai's somtam cart, which would be considerd inexpensive for a foreigner to do, and his own vehicle, so he will be deemed at fault.

I can see the moral dilema for the BiB. Here is a poor Thai, with a wife/husband, possibly young children to take care of, and there is a fully insure foreigner, or a foreigner with enough money to fix a motorbile and pay for a broken wrist and some time off work.

Option 1: no, the insurance company doesn't like that. Don't forget that everybody complains all the time about insurance companies not paying, and now you think they suddenly start even though they don't have to?

Option 2: this could happen, to both foreigner and Thai. The options are simple: accept it, same as a Thai would (although as mentioned already the moralities are changing in this respect) or stand your ground and don't sign/give in.

[LivinginKata]

"It's a win win all round. Well, only if the Farang has full insurance" - no win win and no insurance on a motorbike.

My concern is, a Thai crashes into me, hits his head on the road, dies, and I'm up for the compensation to the family.

Refuse to pay, and you sit in gaol until you do.

Exactly correct - perfect analysis.

[stevenl]

"It's a win win all round. Well, only if the Farang has full insurance" - no win win and no insurance on a motorbike.

My concern is, a Thai crashes into me, hits his head on the road, dies, and I'm up for the compensation to the family.

Refuse to pay, and you sit in gaol until you do.

Exactly correct - perfect analysis.

No, would not be in gaol. Passport would be confiscated pending a courtcase.

[NamKangMan]

@ stevenl

In both options, I can see why the BiB would think it best to show the accident is the foreigners fault.

Option 1) The insurance company pays for everything, and everybody. No one is out of pocket - just the insurance company.

Option 2) The foreigner is considered rich enough to fix poor Somchai's somtam cart, which would be considerd inexpensive for a foreigner to do, and his own vehicle, so he will be deemed at fault.

I can see the moral dilema for the BiB. Here is a poor Thai, with a wife/husband, possibly young children to take care of, and there is a fully insure foreigner, or a foreigner with enough money to fix a motorbile and pay for a broken wrist and some time off work.

Option 1: no, the insurance company doesn't like that. Don't forget that everybody complains all the time about insurance companies not paying, and now you think they suddenly start even though they don't have to?

Option 2: this could happen, to both foreigner and Thai. The options are simple: accept it, same as a Thai would (although as mentioned already the moralities are changing in this respect) or stand your ground and don't sign/give in.

Once the BiB deem the foreigner, with insurance, to be at fault, the insurance company has to pay.

I doubt you could deny liability, if "the law" (BiB) say you are liable.

Do you really think the insurance company will take the BiB to Court over their determination of who is at fault in the accident?

Edited February 20, 2015 by NamKangMan

[NamKangMan]

"It's a win win all round. Well, only if the Farang has full insurance" - no win win and no insurance on a motorbike.

My concern is, a Thai crashes into me, hits his head on the road, dies, and I'm up for the compensation to the family.

Refuse to pay, and you sit in gaol until you do.

Exactly correct - perfect analysis.

No, would not be in gaol. Passport would be confiscated pending a courtcase.

Prolonging the inevitable - pay up, or go to gaol.

[stevenl]

@ stevenl

In both options, I can see why the BiB would think it best to show the accident is the foreigners fault.

Option 1) The insurance company pays for everything, and everybody. No one is out of pocket - just the insurance company.

Option 2) The foreigner is considered rich enough to fix poor Somchai's somtam cart, which would be considerd inexpensive for a foreigner to do, and his own vehicle, so he will be deemed at fault.

I can see the moral dilema for the BiB. Here is a poor Thai, with a wife/husband, possibly young children to take care of, and there is a fully insure foreigner, or a foreigner with enough money to fix a motorbile and pay for a broken wrist and some time off work.

Option 1: no, the insurance company doesn't like that. Don't forget that everybody complains all the time about insurance companies not paying, and now you think they suddenly start even though they don't have to?

Option 2: this could happen, to both foreigner and Thai. The options are simple: accept it, same as a Thai would (although as mentioned already the moralities are changing in this respect) or stand your ground and don't sign/give in.

Once the BiB deem the foreigner, with insurance, to be at fault, the insurance company has to pay.

I doubt you could deny liability, if "the law" (BiB) say you are liable.

Do you really think the insurance company will take the BiB to Court over their determination of who is at fault in the accident?

Sorry, does not work that way. The BiB will state in black and white what happened, both parties have the choice to accept that or not. If not, the other party can take the party not accepting to court.

Always make sure your insurance rep is present, they will do as much as they can to deny responsibility on your behalf.

[hansgruber]

Who can forget the expat who left his car parked and someone rearended it at 4 am and died. He ended up charged and in the cells until he compensated and he was sound asleep in bed when it happened.

[NamKangMan]

Who can forget the expat who left his car parked and someone rearended it at 4 am and died. He ended up charged and in the cells until he compensated and he was sound asleep in bed when it happened.

I remember that one.

He had a pick-up truck, from memory, and it was parked in a no standing zone - only 300 baht fine.

I think it was a drunk bar girl, she crashed into it, died, and they blamed the farang who was in bed asleep.

From memory, he refused to pay.

I think he went to gaol for 12 or 18 months.

Big difference from a 300 baht fine to gaol for 12 or 18 months.

I suppose we can blame his insurance company for not representing him too well.

[NamKangMan]

@ stevenl

In both options, I can see why the BiB would think it best to show the accident is the foreigners fault.

Option 1) The insurance company pays for everything, and everybody. No one is out of pocket - just the insurance company.

Option 2) The foreigner is considered rich enough to fix poor Somchai's somtam cart, which would be considerd inexpensive for a foreigner to do, and his own vehicle, so he will be deemed at fault.

I can see the moral dilema for the BiB. Here is a poor Thai, with a wife/husband, possibly young children to take care of, and there is a fully insure foreigner, or a foreigner with enough money to fix a motorbile and pay for a broken wrist and some time off work.

Option 1: no, the insurance company doesn't like that. Don't forget that everybody complains all the time about insurance companies not paying, and now you think they suddenly start even though they don't have to?

Option 2: this could happen, to both foreigner and Thai. The options are simple: accept it, same as a Thai would (although as mentioned already the moralities are changing in this respect) or stand your ground and don't sign/give in.

Once the BiB deem the foreigner, with insurance, to be at fault, the insurance company has to pay.

I doubt you could deny liability, if "the law" (BiB) say you are liable.

Do you really think the insurance company will take the BiB to Court over their determination of who is at fault in the accident?

Sorry, does not work that way. The BiB will state in black and white what happened, both parties have the choice to accept that or not. If not, the other party can take the party not accepting to court.

Always make sure your insurance rep is present, they will do as much as they can to deny responsibility on your behalf.

"The BiB will state in black and white what happened" - and how would one dispute the BiB's determination. Not going to have a win there.

[stevenl]

"The BiB will state in black and white what happened" - and how would one dispute the BiB's determination. Not going to have a win there.

I give up, you clearly don't want to understand how things work

[LivinginKata]

Baiting post removed ...

Forum rule 9) You will not post inflammatory messages on the forum, or attempt to disrupt discussions to upset its participants, or trolling. Trolling can be defined as the act of purposefully antagonizing other people on the internet by posting controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.