Five-year-old boy dies in crash on famous Phuket bridge

[webfact]

Five-year-old boy dies in crash on famous Phuket bridge
Eakkapop Thongtub


The driver of the Mitsubishi SUV had parked to enjoy the view.

PHUKET: -- A five-year-old boy died instantly and a 16-year-old boy was injured yesterday (May 5) when the motorcycle they were riding on crashed into a parked SUV on Sarasin Bridge.

At 5:50pm Tha Chat Chai police were called to the scene of an accident on the northbound side Sarasin Bridge where a motorcycle had crashed into the back of a parked SUV.

Police arrived at the scene, next to the bridge̕s viewpoint, with Kusoldharm rescue workers and found a wrecked Honda Wave lying on the road next to a Mitsubishi SUV.

The body of the dead five-year-old boy and an unconcious boy were lying on the road.

The injured boy, who had suffered a broken arm, was later identified as Chanakorn Cheirlangsard, 16, from Takuatung in Phang Nga.

Mr Chanakorn received first aid at the scene before being taken to Vachira Hospital.

The body of the five-year-old, named as Warayuth Prarisake and also from Takuatung was taken to Thalang Hospital.

When questioned by police, the driver of the Mitsubishi, Isamael Madrare, 42, from Satun said that he had parked his truck on the bridge to enjoy the view and the motorbike slammed into the back of his truck.

Mr Isamael was taken to Tha Chat Chai police station for further questioning.

Source: http://www.thephuketnews.com/five-year-old-boy-dies-in-crash-on-famous-phuket-bridge-52182.php


-- Phuket News 2015-05-06

[keestha]

Sigh.....it has always been a universal traffic rule that it is prohibited to park on a bridge.

[zaphod reborn]

Sigh.....it has always been a universal traffic rule that it is prohibited to park on a bridge.

And doubtful that Thailand would follow this international standard, or ever enforce such a prohibition.

[Gutterboy]

Of course the driver of the car should not have parked on the bridge, but let's not ignore the fact that a 16 year old was riding a bike with a 5 year on it, most likely without helmets, and smashed into the back of a stationery car! A broken arm is the least he deserves and let's hope (in vain) that the parents of these children are severely reprimanded.

[DoctorG]

Please excuse my ignorance. What is this bridge famous for?

[snooky]

Of course the driver of the car should not have parked on the bridge, but let's not ignore the fact that a 16 year old was riding a bike with a 5 year on it, most likely without helmets, and smashed into the back of a stationery car! A broken arm is the least he deserves and let's hope (in vain) that the parents of these children are severely reprimanded.

And lets also hope the driver of the vehicle is incarcerated for at least a year to sit and think about his stupidity which led to the boy's death and injury!

[Alwyn]

Of course the driver of the car should not have parked on the bridge, but let's not ignore the fact that a 16 year old was riding a bike with a 5 year on it, most likely without helmets, and smashed into the back of a stationery car! A broken arm is the least he deserves and let's hope (in vain) that the parents of these children are severely reprimanded.

What is your point? 16 years old is legal and taking a passenger who can sit unassisted is also legal. You're surmising they were not wearing crash helmets. A 5 year old lad dies from this and you waffle on a bunch of bs and hope the parents get reprimanded at their time of grief. The responsible person is the lunatic who parked his car on a two lane highway on a bridge so he could "admire the view". End of.

[northernphil]

' arrived at the scene next to the bridges viewpoint ' Never been to Phuket and never heard of the famous/infamous bridge. Is it ok to park at this viewpoint ?

[schlog]

Please excuse my ignorance. What is this bridge famous for?

The Sarasin Bridge has a sad association with romantic suicide after a young couple tied themselves together and jumped from it after their parents forbade them to see each other.

That was in the 1960s, and the suicide sparked a hit song and later a well-known film. Because of this, Thai tourists often make a point of visiting the bridge when in Phuket.

Since then there have been a number of suicides from jumping off the bridge. In 2002 two deaf-mute women jumped together; one survived. In 2005 a Phuket women died after jumping into the strait below.

- See more at: http://www.thephuketnews.com/woman-jumps-from-sarasin-bridge-north-of-phuket-40803.php#sthash.5QOTjnsX.dpuf

http://www.thephuketnews.com/woman-jumps-from-sarasin-bridge-north-of-phuket-40803.php

[LivinginKata]

Please excuse my ignorance. What is this bridge famous for?

Romatic suicides. Historically young couples who have been denied the approval of their parents have jumped off this bridge to their deaths. Sad ...

[Andre0720]

Sigh.....it has always been a universal traffic rule that it is prohibited to park on a bridge.

And so many other places where they will just park and create danger for others....

Many visitors leave their brains at home and do the same here....

[evadgib]

Of course the driver of the car should not have parked on the bridge, but let's not ignore the fact that a 16 year old was riding a bike with a 5 year on it, most likely without helmets, and smashed into the back of a stationery car! A broken arm is the least he deserves and let's hope (in vain) that the parents of these children are severely reprimanded.

What is your point? 16 years old is legal and taking a passenger who can sit unassisted is also legal. You're surmising they were not wearing crash helmets. A 5 year old lad dies from this and you waffle on a bunch of bs and hope the parents get reprimanded at their time of grief. The responsible person is the lunatic who parked his car on a two lane highway on a bridge so he could "admire the view". End of.

Can we assume from your righteousness that you have verified the riders eligibility to use the road?

[cornishcarlos]

Wouldn't be surprised if the 5yr old was riding the bike, with the 16yr old on the back ! Doesn't actually say in the article ?

[Johpa]

The Sarasin Bridge has a sad association with romantic suicide after a young couple tied themselves together and jumped from it after their parents forbade them to see each other.

That was in the 1960s, and the suicide sparked a hit song and later a well-known film.

Ah yes, one of the many great romantic films starring the beautiful Ms. Jintara Sukaphatana in the film Sapan Rak Sarasin (1987) that was a Thai rendering of wealthier girl falls in love with poorer boy from wrong side of the tracks, or beach in this instance. My wife took me to see that one soon after we got married back in the days of the huge Thai movie theaters.

[Alwyn]

Of course the driver of the car should not have parked on the bridge, but let's not ignore the fact that a 16 year old was riding a bike with a 5 year on it, most likely without helmets, and smashed into the back of a stationery car! A broken arm is the least he deserves and let's hope (in vain) that the parents of these children are severely reprimanded.

What is your point? 16 years old is legal and taking a passenger who can sit unassisted is also legal. You're surmising they were not wearing crash helmets. A 5 year old lad dies from this and you waffle on a bunch of bs and hope the parents get reprimanded at their time of grief. The responsible person is the lunatic who parked his car on a two lane highway on a bridge so he could "admire the view". End of.

Can we assume from your righteousness that you have verified the riders eligibility to use the road?

and do you know that he is not eligible? I just hate it when people like you and 'gutterboy' jump to conclusions, his were just nonsense as he waffled on about the driver being 16. So what if he is 16? 16 is old enough to ride legally, whether he was legal is another story. "Have you verified the riders eligibility"? and you call me righteous? Get a life or get a heart, a 5 year old died because of the dimwit parking on the bridge and you just immediately jump to the conclusion the rider must be in the wrong because he's 16.. Nauseous person aren't you.

[Alwyn]

' arrived at the scene next to the bridges viewpoint ' Never been to Phuket and never heard of the famous/infamous bridge. Is it ok to park at this viewpoint ?

Re-read the article. He did not stop at any "viewpoint". He stopped on a busy dual carriageway to look at the view. The viewpoint is accessed by foot. This is the road the guy parked on to "enjoy the view"..

[Alwyn]

For the benefit of the people who don't know the Sarasin bridge and for those who think this dimwit had parked at a view point.. Here is the Sarasin bridge. The main part is the pedestrian part where viewpoints can be accessed. The road is above to the right, this is where he parked.

[ChiangmaiRob]

Of course the driver of the car should not have parked on the bridge, but let's not ignore the fact that a 16 year old was riding a bike with a 5 year on it, most likely without helmets, and smashed into the back of a stationery car! A broken arm is the least he deserves and let's hope (in vain) that the parents of these children are severely reprimanded.

What is your point? 16 years old is legal and taking a passenger who can sit unassisted is also legal. You're surmising they were not wearing crash helmets. A 5 year old lad dies from this and you waffle on a bunch of bs and hope the parents get reprimanded at their time of grief. The responsible person is the lunatic who parked his car on a two lane highway on a bridge so he could "admire the view". End of.

And pray tell, what difference there would have been if the car had broken down or parked on the bridge? For whatever reason the car was stopped, it seems to me the blame lies solely with the 16 year old who should have been looking where he was going and seen the car stopped. And where does it say the 16 year old was legal to ride the bike? I'm guessing, there's a 5% chance he actually had a driving licence, and much the same as most youngsters riding on the public highways in Thailand, he wasn't looking much beyond his front wheel!

Edited May 6, 2015 by ChiangmaiRob

[williet98248]

Every time i go over that bridge there is some car or cars parked on the road way to 'admire the view' usually just after the 'no parking on bridge sign'. There are signs directing people to the parking areas at each end of the bridge for walking out to the viewpoint. The car driver should be charged with negligence causing a death. This is a dual carriage way and traffic is moving at highway speeds.

[NamKangMan]

Of course the driver of the car should not have parked on the bridge, but let's not ignore the fact that a 16 year old was riding a bike with a 5 year on it, most likely without helmets, and smashed into the back of a stationery car! A broken arm is the least he deserves and let's hope (in vain) that the parents of these children are severely reprimanded.

What is your point? 16 years old is legal and taking a passenger who can sit unassisted is also legal. You're surmising they were not wearing crash helmets. A 5 year old lad dies from this and you waffle on a bunch of bs and hope the parents get reprimanded at their time of grief. The responsible person is the lunatic who parked his car on a two lane highway on a bridge so he could "admire the view". End of.

Can we assume from your righteousness that you have verified the riders eligibility to use the road?

and do you know that he is not eligible? I just hate it when people like you and 'gutterboy' jump to conclusions, his were just nonsense as he waffled on about the driver being 16. So what if he is 16? 16 is old enough to ride legally, whether he was legal is another story. "Have you verified the riders eligibility"? and you call me righteous? Get a life or get a heart, a 5 year old died because of the dimwit parking on the bridge and you just immediately jump to the conclusion the rider must be in the wrong because he's 16.. Nauseous person aren't you.

There are many reasons why the car COULD have stopped on the bridge. It could have broken down. It could have been stuck in traffic. It could have been stopped by police. It could have stopped for debris on the roadway. There could have been a medical emergency inside the vehicle etc etc.

I agree the driver's reason for stopping is insufficient, but I hardly think the death of the rider should be blamed on him.

I don't care if the rider is 16 or 60 - he rode the bike in a negligent manner, proven by the fact he did not keep a proper lookout on the road ahead, and thus collided with a large stationary vehicle.

It sounds like the driver of the car was not the only one admiring the view at the time of the accident.

[JetsetBkk]

And pray tell, what difference there would have been if the car had broken down or parked on the bridge? For whatever reason the car was stopped, it seems to me the blame lies solely with the 16 year old who should have been looking where he was going and seen the car stopped. And where does it say the 16 year old was legal to ride the bike? I'm guessing, there's a 5% chance he actually had a driving licence, and much the same as most youngsters riding on the public highways in Thailand, he wasn't looking much beyond his front wheel!

And I would lay odds of 10 to 1 on, that the little 5 year old was the 16 year old's "air bag".

How else did the larger 16 year old get away with only a broken arm?

[evadgib]

Of course the driver of the car should not have parked on the bridge, but let's not ignore the fact that a 16 year old was riding a bike with a 5 year on it, most likely without helmets, and smashed into the back of a stationery car! A broken arm is the least he deserves and let's hope (in vain) that the parents of these children are severely reprimanded.

What is your point? 16 years old is legal and taking a passenger who can sit unassisted is also legal. You're surmising they were not wearing crash helmets. A 5 year old lad dies from this and you waffle on a bunch of bs and hope the parents get reprimanded at their time of grief. The responsible person is the lunatic who parked his car on a two lane highway on a bridge so he could "admire the view". End of.

Can we assume from your righteousness that you have verified the riders eligibility to use the road?

and do you know that he is not eligible? I just hate it when people like you and 'gutterboy' jump to conclusions, his were just nonsense as he waffled on about the driver being 16. So what if he is 16? 16 is old enough to ride legally, whether he was legal is another story. "Have you verified the riders eligibility"? and you call me righteous? Get a life or get a heart, a 5 year old died because of the dimwit parking on the bridge and you just immediately jump to the conclusion the rider must be in the wrong because he's 16.. Nauseous person aren't you.

《deleted; others have rendered further input unnecessary》 Edited May 6, 2015 by evadgib

[Alwyn]

Of course the driver of the car should not have parked on the bridge, but let's not ignore the fact that a 16 year old was riding a bike with a 5 year on it, most likely without helmets, and smashed into the back of a stationery car! A broken arm is the least he deserves and let's hope (in vain) that the parents of these children are severely reprimanded.

What is your point? 16 years old is legal and taking a passenger who can sit unassisted is also legal. You're surmising they were not wearing crash helmets. A 5 year old lad dies from this and you waffle on a bunch of bs and hope the parents get reprimanded at their time of grief. The responsible person is the lunatic who parked his car on a two lane highway on a bridge so he could "admire the view". End of.

And pray tell, what difference there would have been if the car had broken down or parked on the bridge? For whatever reason the car was stopped, it seems to me the blame lies solely with the 16 year old who should have been looking where he was going and seen the car stopped. And where does it say the 16 year old was legal to ride the bike? I'm guessing, there's a 5% chance he actually had a driving licence, and much the same as most youngsters riding on the public highways in Thailand, he wasn't looking much beyond his front wheel!

Well let's begin; If he was broken down he probably would have a branch in the road behind his vehicle (as that seems to be the Thai answer to warning triangles. But he was not broken down he was parked on a highway on the bridge. A busy 4 laned highway road. He was breaking the law and he murdered a 5 year old, that's the difference. The lad piloting the bike was of legal age and so was the passenger (there is no age restriction for the passenger, as in the UK) Maybe the 16 year old has a l;icence, maybe he doesn't, we don't know. What we do know is the owner of the truck was breaking the law. End of.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Alwyn

[JetsetBkk]

Well let's begin; If he was broken down he probably would have a branch in the road behind his vehicle (as that seems to be the Thai answer to warning triangles. But he was not broken down he was parked on a highway on the bridge. A busy 4 laned highway road. He was breaking the law and he murdered a 5 year old, that's the difference. The lad piloting the bike was of legal age and so was the passenger (there is no age restriction for the passenger, as in the UK) Maybe the 16 year old has a l;icence, maybe he doesn't, we don't know. What we do know is the owner of the truck was breaking the law. End of.

Murdered? You don't have much of a clue about the law, do you?

[ChiangmaiRob]

And pray tell, what difference there would have been if the car had broken down or parked on the bridge? For whatever reason the car was stopped, it seems to me the blame lies solely with the 16 year old who should have been looking where he was going and seen the car stopped. And where does it say the 16 year old was legal to ride the bike? I'm guessing, there's a 5% chance he actually had a driving licence, and much the same as most youngsters riding on the public highways in Thailand, he wasn't looking much beyond his front wheel!

And I would lay odds of 10 to 1 on, that the little 5 year old was the 16 year old's "air bag".

How else did the larger 16 year old get away with only a broken arm?

motorbike-4.jpg

I didn't want to click the "like" box, because there's nothing at all right about this sad story, but you're probably right in what you say.

[ChiangmaiRob]

Of course the driver of the car should not have parked on the bridge, but let's not ignore the fact that a 16 year old was riding a bike with a 5 year on it, most likely without helmets, and smashed into the back of a stationery car! A broken arm is the least he deserves and let's hope (in vain) that the parents of these children are severely reprimanded.

What is your point? 16 years old is legal and taking a passenger who can sit unassisted is also legal. You're surmising they were not wearing crash helmets. A 5 year old lad dies from this and you waffle on a bunch of bs and hope the parents get reprimanded at their time of grief. The responsible person is the lunatic who parked his car on a two lane highway on a bridge so he could "admire the view". End of.

And pray tell, what difference there would have been if the car had broken down or parked on the bridge? For whatever reason the car was stopped, it seems to me the blame lies solely with the 16 year old who should have been looking where he was going and seen the car stopped. And where does it say the 16 year old was legal to ride the bike? I'm guessing, there's a 5% chance he actually had a driving licence, and much the same as most youngsters riding on the public highways in Thailand, he wasn't looking much beyond his front wheel!

Well let's begin; If he was broken down he probably would have a branch in the road behind his vehicle (as that seems to be the Thai answer to warning triangles. But he was not broken down he was parked on a highway on the bridge. A busy 4 laned highway road. He was breaking the law and he murdered a 5 year old, that's the difference. The lad piloting the bike was of legal age and so was the passenger (there is no age restriction for the passenger, as in the UK) Maybe the 16 year old has a l;icence, maybe he doesn't, we don't know. What we do know is the owner of the truck was breaking the law. End of.

Don't let your emotions take over ... yes it's very tragic the 5 years old died, but this was not murder! Murder, by definition, is the act of intentionally killing someone, something, this clearly was not!

And, if the 16 year old couldn't see a big bloody SUV, there's a snowflake's chance in hell, he would see a branch on the road!

Edited May 6, 2015 by ChiangmaiRob

[Lokie]

Driver made a poor choice in stopping on the bridge, agreed, but' if the 16 year old was controlling the scooter wheather having a valid licence or not - he was responsible for controlling the vehicle safely and the fact is he ran into the stationary vehicle, that is what caused the accident and unfortunate death of the youngster.

[Alwyn]

Well let's begin; If he was broken down he probably would have a branch in the road behind his vehicle (as that seems to be the Thai answer to warning triangles. But he was not broken down he was parked on a highway on the bridge. A busy 4 laned highway road. He was breaking the law and he murdered a 5 year old, that's the difference. The lad piloting the bike was of legal age and so was the passenger (there is no age restriction for the passenger, as in the UK) Maybe the 16 year old has a l;icence, maybe he doesn't, we don't know. What we do know is the owner of the truck was breaking the law. End of.

Murdered? You don't have much of a clue about the law, do you?

Actually. I do. But you impressed me with your knowledge of emoticons. My little kid is good at them too

[Gutterboy]

Of course the driver of the car should not have parked on the bridge, but let's not ignore the fact that a 16 year old was riding a bike with a 5 year on it, most likely without helmets, and smashed into the back of a stationery car! A broken arm is the least he deserves and let's hope (in vain) that the parents of these children are severely reprimanded.

What is your point? 16 years old is legal and taking a passenger who can sit unassisted is also legal. You're surmising they were not wearing crash helmets. A 5 year old lad dies from this and you waffle on a bunch of bs and hope the parents get reprimanded at their time of grief. The responsible person is the lunatic who parked his car on a two lane highway on a bridge so he could "admire the view". End of.

And pray tell, what difference there would have been if the car had broken down or parked on the bridge? For whatever reason the car was stopped, it seems to me the blame lies solely with the 16 year old who should have been looking where he was going and seen the car stopped. And where does it say the 16 year old was legal to ride the bike? I'm guessing, there's a 5% chance he actually had a driving licence, and much the same as most youngsters riding on the public highways in Thailand, he wasn't looking much beyond his front wheel!

Precisely. Thank you.

[LivinginKata]

Just by chance I crossed the bridge about 10.00 today. White car stopped on the bridge, mom, dad and 3 young kids spill out onto the main road to take some photos. Not sure if Thai or Chinese, but for sure Asian family. Stupid, and potentially fatal.