Why it's best not to stop at a Beach Rd pedestrian light!

[Keesters]

Yesterday, my wife received a letter from the police showing our car and doing 101kmh along Sukhumvit where the limit is 90kmh. The law was broken so no gripe. But when you consider that most vehicles are doing more that 90kmh along that highway out of the town it was just bad luck that she got caught. Perhaps it would be more beneficial for them to set up cameras at pedestrian crossings where the risk to human life is much greater ?

Good to see at least one traffic offender get caught. And who knows maybe many many more got caught like you did. Will you speed again at the same spot or anywhere else. Will you now observe a red light. Will you let pedestrians cross when at a zebra or pelican crossing. Or will you blindly continue breaking the law on the basis of only getting caught now and again on unlucky days.

[NoshowJones]

You did do the right thing in stopping because if you did not, and you hit someone, you will be in big trouble. In places like Beach Road or any other busy roads where people are regularly trying to cross. keep as far to the left as you can (this will give you a better chance of avoiding being rear ended by some vehicle) and watch your speed.

[NoshowJones]

I am always nervous approaching any light turning red. Do i stop, as i should, and risk someone running into the back of me, or keep going and risk someone jumping the light the other way running into me. I certainly wouldn't stop for a pedestrian red light.

Not even if there were pedestrians already on the road?????

[NoshowJones]

Traffic lights don't turn red all of sudden, they have an amber light first, maybe the OP should pay more attention to traffic situations while riding his bike.

This is Thailand we are talking about here, not some Western country. I have not seen many amber lights here, and they do turn red all of a sudden.

[Keesters]

I am always nervous approaching any light turning red. Do i stop, as i should, and risk someone running into the back of me, or keep going and risk someone jumping the light the other way running into me. I certainly wouldn't stop for a pedestrian red light.

(removed) Of course you should stop for a pedestrian red. You should also stop at a regular non lighted zebra crossing if someone is trying to cross. Your driving license should be cancelled and you should be banned for life. Your vehicle should be impounded and eventually sold off to pay for some unfortunate road accident victims medical treatment.

I always stop. Been stopping for 30 years. Never have I been hit from behind. The vehicles behind know that the vehicle in front may suddenly stop. It doesn't take a red light for that to happen. They may be close to you but IMO they can manage to stop. They always have with me.

Edited March 10, 2015 by petercool
Flame comments removed

[NoshowJones]

Another reason why pedestrian overpasses are the only solution for a safe crossing the way these people drive.

Pedestrian overpasses are no solution at all for people whose knees are a bit wonky.

The solution for safe pedestrian crossing is to fine bad drivers. In fact fining bad drivers would be the best solution to most road-related problems in Thailand.

Yes, fining them would be the best solution, but in most cases, the driver would just not bother paying the fine.

The best solution would be immediately withholding the vehicle or bike until the fine is paid, with the minimum fine being 1000Bt.

But we all know that will never happen. (removed)

Edited March 10, 2015 by petercool
Thailand bashing comment removed

[NoshowJones]

OP was correct to stop and should have stayed stopped until a green light gave him the go ahead and the crossing was clear of pedestrians. His situation has happened to me many time with all the flashing lights and horn honking from other vehicles who want to ignore the crossing and charge ahead. Hold your ground they won't hit you they know they are in the wrong and to hit you will cost them. Use of your middle digit helps make your point I find.

The pedestrians should have carried forward and crossed. Again the cars won't hit you if you stand in their way as long as they have time to stop which they won't unless you make them do so. Again I find holding out an outstretched arm palm towards them gives them the message that your crossing and come on hit me I dare you.

When these lights were first installed city police were out in full numbers helping pedestrians cross, showing them how they were to be used and stopping the vehicles and explaining that the must stop on red. But like so many things here it started off good and then fizzled out. Most of the lights are broken or switched off. The situation has returned to pure anarchy. Cross wherever you like, ignore the lights, ignore the crossings. Meanwhile the Mayor sits in his office smug that he ripped the city taxpayers off with what I can only describe as a complete and utter farce. A normal corrupt days business. The Mayor has also promised to fix these lights but like any good politician he lied.

"Good" politician?????????????

[smotherb]

Yeah, I stopped on a left turn for an elderly lady crossing the street in a pedestrian crosswalk. Unfortunately, a pick-up truck decided not to wait and ran her down. Fortunately, a cop I know was standing nearby and he told me to leave immediately. Later, I talked with him. He said he told me to leave because the truck driver would have, and did, blame me for the accident. Go figure.

[CliffH]

There's one of these crossings in front of the Beach Road police station. If they got it working and imposed a 1,000 baht fine to everyone going through on red, the BIB could make a fortune, without having to wander from their doorstep. Easy money.

[Sealbash]

I certainly wouldn't stop for a pedestrian red light.

That's just a criminal act !

What about you trying to cross as a pedestrian and someone else thinking the same ?

Yes. Because if the light is red, then it is definitely safe for a pedestrian to cross.

[Si Thea01]

It's the same here in the north east. Pedestrian crossings, these don't mean stop, they mean speed up and if you get in the way, bye, bye. The other day driving with a van right up my clacker, orange then red light, changed within 2 seconds. Even though I was only 30 metres off the lights, there was no way I was going to stop, I actually had to accelerate otherwise I would have been nursing the van. I just made sure I flashed the headlights so fortunately no one started to turn in front of me and I got through, of course with the van still tailgating me.

They have also put in a 40 kilometre hour school zone. 5555. This means that they can increase their speed to at least double, blow their horn or flash their lights when you slow to the required speed. Some of these people behind the wheel must be just plain brain dead, and no I am not Thai bashing. It is the only explanation for the way they control their vehicles.

[manarak]

I wished such lights would count cars and refuse to turn red when the car frequency is low.

I remember where I lived before (Europe) many people wanting to cross the road would approach the (empty) road, press the button, wait for 20 seconds for the lights to switch to green for pedestrians and then cross...

Often I would be the only car there, waiting for someone to cross.

I wonder why normal humans feel the need to push that button when there is only about 1 car passing every minute ?

It reminds me of the movie "Idiocracy".

[Keesters]

Another reason why pedestrian overpasses are the only solution for a safe crossing the way these people drive.

Pedestrian overpasses are no solution at all for people whose knees are a bit wonky.

The solution for safe pedestrian crossing is to fine bad drivers. In fact fining bad drivers would be the best solution to most road-related problems in Thailand.

Yes, fining them would be the best solution, but in most cases, the driver would just not bother paying the fine.

The best solution would be immediately withholding the vehicle or bike until the fine is paid, with the minimum fine being 1000Bt.

But we all know that will never happen. (removed)

It might. The RTP have just asked for more powers in impounding vehicles. Today was the first time I'd heard of someone getting a speeding ticket through the post. Times they are a changin'. Thank you mr general pm sir.

.

[Keesters]

It's the same here in the north east. Pedestrian crossings, these don't mean stop, they mean speed up and if you get in the way, bye, bye. The other day driving with a van right up my clacker, orange then red light, changed within 2 seconds. Even though I was only 30 metres off the lights, there was no way I was going to stop, I actually had to accelerate otherwise I would have been nursing the van. I just made sure I flashed the headlights so fortunately no one started to turn in front of me and I got through, of course with the van still tailgating me.

Unbelievable. See you've got your Thainess all figured out. Law breaker. Crimes like you should be banned from driving for life. Your vehicle taken away and sold to pay for some unfortunate road accident victims medical expenses.

[cruisemonkey]

... but someone suggested installing pedestrian bridges as a solution to an existing problem.

I like the idea of being proactive.

Alternatively, Thais could be taught how to drive properly. Oh wait... you'd have a better chance teaching retarded chimps.

[Si Thea01]

This a little off topic but maybe some can explain this. A driver is involved in a crash with a motorcyclist, who is drunk, unlicensed, no helmet and has no registration or insurance. The cyclist crashed in to the car not the other way round.

Police attend, no charges and car driver not at fault. Unfortunately cyclist dies and as driver has 1st class insurance a lawyer acts on their behalf. Meeting with police lawyer for negotiating a payment to dead man's family. Nothing from 1st meeting now want a second meeting. What is with this if driver not at fault and has 1st class insurance but the family want money from insurer and driver. How does this work if driver not at fault, how can family seek payment given all the circumstances?

[hanno]

This a little off topic but maybe some can explain this. A driver is involved in a crash with a motorcyclist, who is drunk, unlicensed, no helmet and has no registration or insurance. The cyclist crashed in to the car not the other way round.

Police attend, no charges and car driver not at fault. Unfortunately cyclist dies and as driver has 1st class insurance a lawyer acts on their behalf. Meeting with police lawyer for negotiating a payment to dead man's family. Nothing from 1st meeting now want a second meeting. What is with this if driver not at fault and has 1st class insurance but the family want money from insurer and driver. How does this work if driver not at fault, how can family seek payment given all the circumstances?

The stronger party is at fault. The same in Vietnam and here in Cambodia (well, in Cambodia only if you are not a "VIP").

[Ulic]

You also have to be careful stopping for a regular traffic light if it has just turned red. I have been

passed by as many as 5 cars when I stopped for a red light on my scooter. Cars just whizzed by

for another 4-5 seconds.

Edited March 10, 2015 by Ulic

[Jing Joe]

Sure; rules should be obeyed but this looks like motorists might be trying to get thought to the authorities how

stupidly frustrating automatic lights are.

Why not operate only on demand by pedestrians, and have an introductory police presence?

Might take a while to get through to local drivers and probably have a few near misses or worse.

With such liitle traffic in the video clip, (and virtually no pedestrians anywhere near) who would trust them at present anyway?

May be a different story in peak hour and even then who would trust them?

Maybe none of this will happen and it will be scrapped in favour of an overhead bridge crossing.

Just love the count down clocks in Thailand.

P.S. How about replacing the pedestrian lights with decent boom gates like a rail crossing.

Would really boost the local front & rear end smash repair businesses.

[Si Thea01]

It's the same here in the north east. Pedestrian crossings, these don't mean stop, they mean speed up and if you get in the way, bye, bye. The other day driving with a van right up my clacker, orange then red light, changed within 2 seconds. Even though I was only 30 metres off the lights, there was no way I was going to stop, I actually had to accelerate otherwise I would have been nursing the van. I just made sure I flashed the headlights so fortunately no one started to turn in front of me and I got through, of course with the van still tailgating me.

Unbelievable. See you've got your Thainess all figured out. Law breaker. Crimes like you should be banned from driving for life. Your vehicle taken away and sold to pay for some unfortunate road accident victims medical expenses.

So you're saying that If some one is tailgating me, so close I cannot see their headlights, that I should have stopped and in turn have them drive through me and possible they, myself or others are seriously injured or even killed. And it's crims not crimes, learn to write properly or at least correct you spelling.

[Si Thea01]

This a little off topic but maybe some can explain this. A driver is involved in a crash with a motorcyclist, who is drunk, unlicensed, no helmet and has no registration or insurance. The cyclist crashed in to the car not the other way round.

Police attend, no charges and car driver not at fault. Unfortunately cyclist dies and as driver has 1st class insurance a lawyer acts on their behalf. Meeting with police lawyer for negotiating a payment to dead man's family. Nothing from 1st meeting now want a second meeting. What is with this if driver not at fault and has 1st class insurance but the family want money from insurer and driver. How does this work if driver not at fault, how can family seek payment given all the circumstances?

The stronger party is at fault. The same in Vietnam and here in Cambodia (well, in Cambodia only if you are not a "VIP").

Are you saying that the person who has insurance is deemed at fault, not the intoxicated third party, who caused the crash.

[hanno]

The stronger party is at fault. The same in Vietnam and here in Cambodia (well, in Cambodia only if you are not a "VIP").

Are you saying that the person who has insurance is deemed at fault, not the intoxicated third party, who caused the crash.

Welcome to SE Asia

[Keesters]

This a little off topic but maybe some can explain this. A driver is involved in a crash with a motorcyclist, who is drunk, unlicensed, no helmet and has no registration or insurance. The cyclist crashed in to the car not the other way round.

Police attend, no charges and car driver not at fault. Unfortunately cyclist dies and as driver has 1st class insurance a lawyer acts on their behalf. Meeting with police lawyer for negotiating a payment to dead man's family. Nothing from 1st meeting now want a second meeting. What is with this if driver not at fault and has 1st class insurance but the family want money from insurer and driver. How does this work if driver not at fault, how can family seek payment given all the circumstances?

Ask in the motoring forum. Not hard to start a thread. You're more likely to get a sensible answer there than here.

[Si Thea01]

This a little off topic but maybe some can explain this. A driver is involved in a crash with a motorcyclist, who is drunk, unlicensed, no helmet and has no registration or insurance. The cyclist crashed in to the car not the other way round.

Police attend, no charges and car driver not at fault. Unfortunately cyclist dies and as driver has 1st class insurance a lawyer acts on their behalf. Meeting with police lawyer for negotiating a payment to dead man's family. Nothing from 1st meeting now want a second meeting. What is with this if driver not at fault and has 1st class insurance but the family want money from insurer and driver. How does this work if driver not at fault, how can family seek payment given all the circumstances?

Ask in the motoring forum. Not hard to start a thread. You're more likely to get a sensible answer there than here.

Thanks.

[Keesters]

It's the same here in the north east. Pedestrian crossings, these don't mean stop, they mean speed up and if you get in the way, bye, bye. The other day driving with a van right up my clacker, orange then red light, changed within 2 seconds. Even though I was only 30 metres off the lights, there was no way I was going to stop, I actually had to accelerate otherwise I would have been nursing the van. I just made sure I flashed the headlights so fortunately no one started to turn in front of me and I got through, of course with the van still tailgating me.

Unbelievable. See you've got your Thainess all figured out. Law breaker. Crimes like you should be banned from driving for life. Your vehicle taken away and sold to pay for some unfortunate road accident victims medical expenses.

So you're saying that If some one is tailgating me, so close I cannot see their headlights, that I should have stopped and in turn have them drive through me and possible they, myself or others are seriously injured or even killed. And it's crims not crimes, learn to write properly or at least correct you spelling.

Yes. Doubt that anybody would be injured as the speed of the tailgating vehicle would be close to yours so hardly a big crash. However because you continue through a red light protecting your beloved motor some innocent pedestrian who at that time has the legal right to cross and gets mown down by you and your tin can on 4 wheels. It doesn't take much speed to maim or kill a pedestrian. Do you want that on your mind for the rest of your life together with possibly manslaughter charges, a prison sentence, and compensation to the victims family. If it was my child you ran over I would spend the rest of my life making yours a complete misery.

Seems like you'd rather take the risk of killing a child than have your precious vehicle involved in a bender fender that would not be in anyway be your fault. The tailgating vehicle would be 100% in the wrong.

Now that you have admitted this traffic violation do you have anymore you'd like to get of your chest. Speeding, drink driving perhaps.

Damn spell checker. But you got the meaning didn't you.

[Keesters]

Sure; rules should be obeyed but this looks like motorists might be trying to get thought to the authorities how

stupidly frustrating automatic lights are.

Why not operate only on demand by pedestrians, and have an introductory police presence?

Might take a while to get through to local drivers and probably have a few near misses or worse.

With such liitle traffic in the video clip, (and virtually no pedestrians anywhere near) who would trust them at present anyway?

May be a different story in peak hour and even then who would trust them?

Maybe none of this will happen and it will be scrapped in favour of an overhead bridge crossing.

Just love the count down clocks in Thailand.

P.S. How about replacing the pedestrian lights with decent boom gates like a rail crossing.

Would really boost the local front & rear end smash repair businesses.

"Decent boom gates like a railway crossing". We don't even have those in Thailand. Have you not read the recent reports about train crashing into cars at crossings.

"On demand by pedestrians and introduction by police." Did that, been there, didn't work. Better luck next time. Which I hope will be soon.

"Overhead bridge" nobody will use it and not disabled friendly. Not to mention the cost and they're ugly.

The only viable answer is to turn them all back on. Monitor them with cameras and post off severe fines to those who don't stop. Increasing the fine on each subsequent offence.

Police volunteers, farang and thai could be used together with the new beach road police [the orange shirts]. Good income for a few weeks to buy the volunteers some beer at the end of their shift. Don't think the city should profit from this as they've made a complete cock up of it so far. A few army guys with rifles wouldn't go amiss. Once it gets to a low level of offenders scale down the operation leaving only the camera in operation.

[Asiantravel]

You also have to be careful stopping for a regular traffic light if it has just turned red. I have been

passed by as many as 5 cars when I stopped for a red light on my scooter. Cars just whizzed by

for another 4-5 seconds.

"Cars just whizzed by for another 4-5 seconds."

The worst two junctions I have seen for that phenomenon are the junction of second road with Klang and third road again with Klang.

The drivers and motorcyclists on second road that keep going well after the lights turn red don't give a damn about the pedestrians who have been waiting patiently for that short opportunity to cross.

Edited March 10, 2015 by Asiantravel

[Si Thea01]

It's the same here in the north east. Pedestrian crossings, these don't mean stop, they mean speed up and if you get in the way, bye, bye. The other day driving with a van right up my clacker, orange then red light, changed within 2 seconds. Even though I was only 30 metres off the lights, there was no way I was going to stop, I actually had to accelerate otherwise I would have been nursing the van. I just made sure I flashed the headlights so fortunately no one started to turn in front of me and I got through, of course with the van still tailgating me.

Unbelievable. See you've got your Thainess all figured out. Law breaker. Crimes like you should be banned from driving for life. Your vehicle taken away and sold to pay for some unfortunate road accident victims medical expenses.

So you're saying that If some one is tailgating me, so close I cannot see their headlights, that I should have stopped and in turn have them drive through me and possible they, myself or others are seriously injured or even killed. And it's crims not crimes, learn to write properly or at least correct you spelling.

Yes. Doubt that anybody would be injured as the speed of the tailgating vehicle would be close to yours so hardly a big crash. However because you continue through a red light protecting your beloved motor some innocent pedestrian who at that time has the legal right to cross and gets mown down by you and your tin can on 4 wheels. It doesn't take much speed to maim or kill a pedestrian. Do you want that on your mind for the rest of your life together with possibly manslaughter charges, a prison sentence, and compensation to the victims family. If it was my child you ran over I would spend the rest of my life making yours a complete misery.

Seems like you'd rather take the risk of killing a child than have your precious vehicle involved in a bender fender that would not be in anyway be your fault. The tailgating vehicle would be 100% in the wrong.

Now that you have admitted this traffic violation do you have anymore you'd like to get of your chest. Speeding, drink driving perhaps.

Damn spell checker. But you got the meaning didn't you.

Not that I am required to give you an explanation but I will, as well as a lesson as to how stopping distances are determined. And Keesters, even though you seem nice enough, what you have written is utter rubbish. You're also assuming a lot. Firstly I was not speeding, and do not drink so that dispels those theories. It's a wonder you did not accuse me of being unlicensed or driving an unregistered vehicle as well? Now, this is quite lengthy so I hope you will take the time to educate yourself.

For your benefit here is a lesson. It will show you that the total stopping distance of a vehicle is made up of four components and what can occur, so please, before you try and chastise me and carry on with the hokum you have written, absorb the lesson and think twice before you post about something you clearly have no knowledge of. .

• Human Perception Time; Is how long the driver takes to see the hazard, and the brain realize it is a hazard requiring an immediate reaction. This perception time can be as long as ¼ to ½ a second.

• Human Reaction Time; Once the brain realizes danger, the human reaction time is how long the body takes to move the foot from accelerator to brake pedal. Again this reaction time can vary from ¼ - ¾ of a second.

• Vehicle Reaction Time; These first 2 components of stopping distance are human factors and as such can be effected by tiredness, alcohol, fatigue and concentration levels. A perception and reaction time of 3 or 4 seconds is possible. 4 seconds at 100 km/hr. means the car travels 110 metres before the brakes are applied.

• Vehicle Braking Capability; Once the brake pedal is applied there is the vehicle's reaction time which depends on the brake pedal free-play, hydraulic properties of the brake fluid and working order of the braking system.

• This is why the tailgating car usually cannot stop, when the brake light came on in the car in front, this driver had already completed the perception, human and vehicle reaction periods. The following driver was perhaps 1 second to late in applying the brakes. At 100km/hr. the car required 28 metres further to stop.

  The last factor that determines the total stopping distance is the cars braking capability which depends on factors such as;

  • the type of braking system,
  • brake pad material,
  • brake alignment,
  • tyre pressures,
  • tyre tread and grip,
  • vehicle weight,
  • suspension system,
  • the co-efficient of friction of the road surface,
  • wind speed,
  • slope of road,
  • surface smoothness
  • the braking technique applied by the driver.
  Worth noting is that from 50 to 100 kph the braking distance of a car will increase from 10 metres to 40 metres. When you double the speed of a car braking distance quadruples. This is based on the laws of physics. When a car is moving it has kinetic energy, ½mv2. When the velocity doubles the kinetic energy quadruples. The braking capability does not increase when driving faster, there are no reserves of friction. As such, in any vehicle, when your speed doubles braking distance is four times larger.

Now, if you have absorbed all of this and noting that I was not speeding and was there, when you were not, and I was fully aware of the circumstances around me, i.e., it was on an open six lane highway, not in a built up area and no pedestrians were in or about the immediate area and very little traffic about, with the exception of two vehicles in the left lane beside me. I was not driving to protect my beloved motor, as you call it, I was driving to the prevailing circumstances and did not want to create something that was easily avoided without placing anyone else in any type of danger.

The more I read your post the more ridiculous it is ,as you have assumed so much from so little. The other most important factor is the skills of the Thai driver. (From my experience, the majority have very little to none) I have been driving for over 50 years, cars, truck, motor cycles and have completed a number of driver training courses. I have been booked once in my life, over 40 years ago (yes speeding) and have been involved in one crash. (not at fault.) My License has never been suspended, cancelled or endorsed and I consider myself a safe driver, even though it appears you do not. In addition, I have had over 20 years experience as a crash investigator in both the police force and civilian life, and can assure you I know a lot more about crashes, vehicle dynamics and the results from crashes than you do.

And even though I understood what you meant by the incorrectly spelt word, I do object to being called such, as I have never been convicted of any criminal offense, and speeding is not such an offence, nor is my going through the red light. I also hold the office of Justice of the Peace within the New South Wales legal system (Court Officer), so I suggest you refrain from using defamatory remarks in you post, especially to someone you do not know. I could have called you some names also but I will not lower myself in doing so. Here endeth the lesson.

Edited March 10, 2015 by Si Thea01

[chakatee]

It's the same here in the north east. Pedestrian crossings, these don't mean stop, they mean speed up and if you get in the way, bye, bye. The other day driving with a van right up my clacker, orange then red light, changed within 2 seconds. Even though I was only 30 metres off the lights, there was no way I was going to stop, I actually had to accelerate otherwise I would have been nursing the van. I just made sure I flashed the headlights so fortunately no one started to turn in front of me and I got through, of course with the van still tailgating me.

Unbelievable. See you've got your Thainess all figured out. Law breaker. Crimes like you should be banned from driving for life. Your vehicle taken away and sold to pay for some unfortunate road accident victims medical expenses.

So you're saying that If some one is tailgating me, so close I cannot see their headlights, that I should have stopped and in turn have them drive through me and possible they, myself or others are seriously injured or even killed. And it's crims not crimes, learn to write properly or at least correct you spelling.

"if" not with capital I and "someone" as 1 word, "being seriously injured" instead of "are seriously injured" and "your spelling" instead of "you spelling" that is. Otherwise pretty much OK

[Asiantravel]

Unbelievable. See you've got your Thainess all figured out. Law breaker. Crimes like you should be banned from driving for life. Your vehicle taken away and sold to pay for some unfortunate road accident victims medical expenses.

So you're saying that If some one is tailgating me, so close I cannot see their headlights, that I should have stopped and in turn have them drive through me and possible they, myself or others are seriously injured or even killed. And it's crims not crimes, learn to write properly or at least correct you spelling.

Yes. Doubt that anybody would be injured as the speed of the tailgating vehicle would be close to yours so hardly a big crash. However because you continue through a red light protecting your beloved motor some innocent pedestrian who at that time has the legal right to cross and gets mown down by you and your tin can on 4 wheels. It doesn't take much speed to maim or kill a pedestrian. Do you want that on your mind for the rest of your life together with possibly manslaughter charges, a prison sentence, and compensation to the victims family. If it was my child you ran over I would spend the rest of my life making yours a complete misery.

Seems like you'd rather take the risk of killing a child than have your precious vehicle involved in a bender fender that would not be in anyway be your fault. The tailgating vehicle would be 100% in the wrong.

Now that you have admitted this traffic violation do you have anymore you'd like to get of your chest. Speeding, drink driving perhaps.

Damn spell checker. But you got the meaning didn't you.

Not that I am required to give you an explanation but I will, as well as a lesson as to how stopping distances are determined. And Keesters, even though you seem nice enough, what you have written is utter rubbish. You're also assuming a lot. Firstly I was not speeding, and do not drink so that dispels those theories. It's a wonder you did not accuse me of being unlicensed or driving an unregistered vehicle as well? Now, this is quite lengthy so I hope you will take the time to educate yourself.

For your benefit here is a lesson. It will show you that the total stopping distance of a vehicle is made up of four components and what can occur, so please, before you try and chastise me and carry on with the hokum you have written, absorb the lesson and think twice before you post about something you clearly have no knowledge of. .

• Human Perception Time; Is how long the driver takes to see the hazard, and the brain realize it is a hazard requiring an immediate reaction. This perception time can be as long as ¼ to ½ a second.

• Human Reaction Time; Once the brain realizes danger, the human reaction time is how long the body takes to move the foot from accelerator to brake pedal. Again this reaction time can vary from ¼ - ¾ of a second.

• Vehicle Reaction Time; These first 2 components of stopping distance are human factors and as such can be effected by tiredness, alcohol, fatigue and concentration levels. A perception and reaction time of 3 or 4 seconds is possible. 4 seconds at 100 km/hr. means the car travels 110 metres before the brakes are applied.

• Vehicle Braking Capability; Once the brake pedal is applied there is the vehicle's reaction time which depends on the brake pedal free-play, hydraulic properties of the brake fluid and working order of the braking system.

• This is why the tailgating car usually cannot stop, when the brake light came on in the car in front, this driver had already completed the perception, human and vehicle reaction periods. The following driver was perhaps 1 second to late in applying the brakes. At 100km/hr. the car required 28 metres further to stop.

  The last factor that determines the total stopping distance is the cars braking capability which depends on factors such as;

  • the type of braking system,
  • brake pad material,
  • brake alignment,
  • tyre pressures,
  • tyre tread and grip,
  • vehicle weight,
  • suspension system,
  • the co-efficient of friction of the road surface,
  • wind speed,
  • slope of road,
  • surface smoothness
  • the braking technique applied by the driver.
  Worth noting is that from 50 to 100 kph the braking distance of a car will increase from 10 metres to 40 metres. When you double the speed of a car braking distance quadruples. This is based on the laws of physics. When a car is moving it has kinetic energy, ½mv2. When the velocity doubles the kinetic energy quadruples. The braking capability does not increase when driving faster, there are no reserves of friction. As such, in any vehicle, when your speed doubles braking distance is four times larger.

Now, if you have absorbed all of this and noting that I was not speeding and was there, when you were not, and I was fully aware of the circumstances around me, i.e., it was on an open six lane highway, not in a built up area and no pedestrians were in or about the immediate area and very little traffic about, with the exception of two vehicles in the left lane beside me. I was not driving to protect my beloved motor, as you call it, I was driving to the prevailing circumstances and did not want to create something that was easily avoided without placing anyone else in any type of danger.

The more I read your post the more ridiculous it is ,as you have assumed so much from so little. The other most important factor is the skills of the Thai driver. I have been driving for over 50 years, cars, truck, motor cycles and have completed a number of driver training courses. I have been booked once in my life, over 40 years ago (yes speeding) and have been involved in one crash. (not at fault.) My License has never been suspended, cancelled or endorsed and I consider myself a safe driver, even though it appears you do not. In addition, I have had over 20 years experience as a crash investigator in both the police force and civilian life, and can assure you I know a lot more about crashes, vehicle dynamics and the results from crashes than you do.

And even though I understood what you meant by the incorrectly spelt word, I do object to being called such, as I have never been convicted of any criminal offense, and speeding is not such an offence, nor is my going through the red light. I also hold the office of Justice of the Peace within the New South Wales legal system (Court Officer), so I suggest you refrain from using defamatory remarks in you post, especially to someone you do not know. I could have called you some names also but I will not lower myself in doing so. Here endeth the lesson.

" how long the driver takes to see the hazard, and the brain realize it is a hazard requiring an immediate reaction "

That's all fine and good but how can we be sure that such standards can be applied in Thailand? How many drivers actually use their brains and even think about what they are doing by reading the road conditions and pre-empting the actions of others? I don't think many........... and particularly after this morning when I went into a shop in Pattaya and the shop assistant had to use a calculator to work out the total of what 10 items would be each costing 5 baht