Truck driver who killed Chilean cyclist in Korat fined THB7,500

[forumuser10]

So it looks like Farangs are worth 7500 THB, I thought it would have been less,

RIP Chilean guy,travel the world and get mowed down in Thailand.

regards Worgeordie

Well, he is not a whitey, as he is from Chile, but yes, its very tragic indeed.

[sambum]

Ok,ok...it was an accident!

Explain the following:it was bright day-light. The bicycle was towing a trailer, making the whole vehicle about the lenght of a small car.

I assumes, with the trailer in tow, he was not going very fast! And he had posters and cardboard all over.

The whole incident happened just after a checkpoint and the guy was no cycling in the middle of the road. yet the car was fast enough to kill him.

In the original article, it was said, that the car "served" across the road an hit him!

We are not talking dark night, rainy night, single cyclist, wrong side of the road!

We are talking slow moving vehicle, widely visible in bright daylight!

Accident my behind!

Another paranoid Thai Basher.

So it was intentional ?

They are all out to get us!

Show me, where I said, it was intentional, Mr. Thai'er than Thai!

There are nuances between "intentional killing" and "accident"!

"Nuance definition, a subtle difference or distinction in expression, meaning, response, etc."

I would say that there is a BIG difference between "intentional killing" and "accident" - not a subtle one!

So when you say "Accident my behind!", what exactly DO you mean?

[wabothai]

This is just VILE. How can the judge walk from the court thinking he has done a good job and served justice?

he is Thai.

[DM07]

Ok,ok...it was an accident!

Explain the following:it was bright day-light. The bicycle was towing a trailer, making the whole vehicle about the lenght of a small car.

I assumes, with the trailer in tow, he was not going very fast! And he had posters and cardboard all over.

The whole incident happened just after a checkpoint and the guy was no cycling in the middle of the road. yet the car was fast enough to kill him.

In the original article, it was said, that the car "served" across the road an hit him!

We are not talking dark night, rainy night, single cyclist, wrong side of the road!

We are talking slow moving vehicle, widely visible in bright daylight!

Accident my behind!

Another paranoid Thai Basher.

So it was intentional ?

They are all out to get us!

Show me, where I said, it was intentional, Mr. Thai'er than Thai!

There are nuances between "intentional killing" and "accident"!

"Nuance definition, a subtle difference or distinction in expression, meaning, response, etc."

I would say that there is a BIG difference between "intentional killing" and "accident" - not a subtle one!

So when you say "Accident my behind!", what exactly DO you mean?

Given all the facts, that I mentioned...reckless driving, maybe?!

[Neeranam]

Ok,ok...it was an accident!

Explain the following:it was bright day-light. The bicycle was towing a trailer, making the whole vehicle about the lenght of a small car.

I assumes, with the trailer in tow, he was not going very fast! And he had posters and cardboard all over.

The whole incident happened just after a checkpoint and the guy was no cycling in the middle of the road. yet the car was fast enough to kill him.

In the original article, it was said, that the car "served" across the road an hit him!

We are not talking dark night, rainy night, single cyclist, wrong side of the road!

We are talking slow moving vehicle, widely visible in bright daylight!

Accident my behind!

Another paranoid Thai Basher.

So it was intentional ?

They are all out to get us!

Show me, where I said, it was intentional, Mr. Thai'er than Thai!

There are nuances between "intentional killing" and "accident"!

"Nuance definition, a subtle difference or distinction in expression, meaning, response, etc."

I would say that there is a BIG difference between "intentional killing" and "accident" - not a subtle one!

So when you say "Accident my behind!", what exactly DO you mean?

Of course there is a huge difference. Apart from being a troll, he is obviously not a native speaker.

Why would anyone intentionally kill a cyclist?

[DM07]

And I am sure you can exactly point out, where I said it was intentional, right?!

[Johnny S]

This case (and many other) just make Thailand look even more disgraceful and a place you dont want to visit. Personally I advice my friends and Family to go to Vietnam - then I can have a nice Holiday there with them in stead of here where safety is a game of Russian roulette ...

[Johnny S]

Very obviously most people here do not understand the difference between a death by negligent behavior and a premeditated murder.

Instead of starting a witch hunt if the parents are rich and a Thailand bashing when the guy is poor, spend some time getting information and facts about criminal law. Honestly these discussions are getting more and more embarrassing

What's embarrassing is your defence.

Indeed, embarrassing, and if you reply to this thread you are Thai bashing. Thai apologists are pathetic.

There are people whose racist and xenophobic characteristics make it impossible to look at issues with any sense of objectivity or clarity.

You call those who employ linear logic and reason "Thai Apologists."

You have the right to your opinions, but not your own dangerous and narcissistic "facts."

This was an accident. Pure and simple.

It was an accident that cost human life. And yes, made worse by the fact that the people killed were really admirable and inspiring.

The reaction to this story has a lynch mob mentality that exposes a very childish side to the "adults" on this forum.

In this case, the dark and sad truth comes to the surface.

And here it is:

Thai Visa is heavily weighted by racist and xenophobic haters who would never be happy anywhere. They left their Farang Homeland, and came to a country of a completely different race, culture and creed.

Then act SURPRISED when it was so different from home. Of course, that solicits the predictable and reasonable "if it sucks so bad, go home..." reply.

People, please ... show some dignity, respect and class. There are no winners in this story ... only "Whiners" Your whole "Thai People think life is cheap" rant is old and tired.

By the way, if you did ever take time to undersatnd the history and religion of the country you are a GUEST in, you might understand why the reaction you see when people are hurt or die .. is so different form the western way. It does not mean that Thais do not FEEL the same way ... it does not mean they do not value life, yours and theirs ... it is what they show in public, and how they show it.

And so here is a headline. All over the world, everyday, there are tragic traffic accidents. When it is determined that it was a "no fault" accident ... the process ends, everyone has a good cry , and life goes on.

I wish the Foreigners here would man up sometime and act like adults, instead of a bunch of Whining Nancy's who can not accept that sometimes in the adult world, bad things happen and it sucks ... get over it.

I disagree - the Winner is the road-killer that fleed the scene leaving a 2 year old child and a woman wounded by his recklessness - that the Winner ....

btw I hope the next road-murder dosent implicate someone from your Family but if it does then let us hear how "you can suck it up" ...

Edited May 16, 2015 by Johnny S

[sambum]

And I am sure you can exactly point out, where I said it was intentional, right?!

By being non-specific you said it by implication - why didn't you say "reckless driving" in the first place instead of being argumentative by saying "accident my behind!"?

[newnative]

Once again, these two vehicle collisions were not ACCIDENTS. I think the word 'accident' is being used loosely to describe anything happening. Example: "I was just in an auto accident, my car hit a tree." Legally, these two incidents with the truck driver and the HISO teen were not accidents. Had they been ruled accidents by the police or courts, I think no criminal charges would have been filed and no jail time, fines, etc. In both cases, I believe the ruling was reckless driving, which in both cases resulted in death. Neither was premeditated, of course, but both drivers are responsible for causing death due to their reckless actions behind the wheel. I, myself, would like to see significant community service be assigned to the offender along with loss of driving privileges for at least 2 years rather than these small monetary fines that seem to offend everyone, including me.

[maidee]

7500 baht, wow

almost same price for a cheap hitman

[impulse]

Once again, these two vehicle collisions were not ACCIDENTS.

If it wasn't intentional, it was, by definition, an accident.

And I'm pretty sure these drivers didn't deliberately crash their vehicles. That makes them "accidents".

There may have been negligence, or reckless driving, or just plain stupidity. That's for the courts to decide. The courts need to decide culpability (blame).

That's in contrast to an "act of God", where there is no human culpability at all. These crashes were not "acts of God".

[newnative]

I think if something is ruled an accident there is no culpability for the court to decide on. The case is dismissed. These cases were not ruled accidents and dismissed. Instead, the truck driver and teen were, I believe, charged with reckless driving resulting in homicide.

[Si Thea01]

Once again, these two vehicle collisions were not ACCIDENTS.

If it wasn't intentional, it was, by definition, an accident.

And I'm pretty sure these drivers didn't deliberately crash their vehicles. That makes them "accidents".

There may have been negligence, or reckless driving, or just plain stupidity. That's for the courts to decide. The courts need to decide culpability (blame).

That's in contrast to an "act of God", where there is no human culpability at all. These crashes were not "acts of God".

I am sorry but you and many others on here who call these incidents, accidents, are so wrong. Also it is only intentional if it can be proven that either driver took a deliberate action with the intention of impacting with another vehicle or object. Ever heard of vehicular suicide or staged crashes. Then maybe if you read up on them, then you would understand.

Now, for the umpteenth time, the words accident and crash, are often used to describe the same event but in reality each word presents a different image. Here is why law enforcement in the western world refer to matters the matters as either crashes or collisions.

The word accident is referred to as any vehicle collision, whether with another vehicle or object as a traffic accident, one of life's little mishaps. It also gives the impression that there is no fault or liability associated with a specific event. So, in laymen's terms an accident is something that cannot be reasonably foreseen or predicted and cannot be avoided. It just happens. A crash on the other hand is the result of choices made and risks disregarded.

Here's a scenario for you to ponder. Car runs red light and collides with another. Just another traffic accident, correct? Now consider that the driver who ran the red was travelling at 80 KPH in a 60KPH zone. Still an accident? Using a mobile telephone. Still an accident? Let's also assume that he was over the legal limit of 0.05. Would you answer still be the same? I hope this has explained the difference and hopefully you will realise that after all crashes don't just happen, that somebody is always at fault. Now, back to the accident? Nobody's fault? Just an unfortunate event, Simply in the wrong place at the wrong time? Does it really matter?

Sure does, in particular, when determining liability and the victims right to seek compensation for something that occurred which was beyond his/her control. Can you imagine the prosecutor referring to the matter as an accident, then the defence gets up and after establishing the number of times the word accident was used, would well be in his rights to pursue this avenue in an attempt to get his client a lighter sentence were they to be convicted. He might even be successful in having the matter dismissed.

Now correct me if I am wrong, but I believe both defendants were charged by police with reckless driving, which clearly suggests police had evidence to prove it was not an accident but serious crashes claiming lives. In this instance, it has also allowed the victims families to pursue the defendants in a civil court for damages. Had the case not been proven then I can assure you the matter would not be proceeding along the lines that it now is.

[impulse]

Here's 4 websites that disagree with the above- from several different countries. I can link 1000 more if you'd like... Unless the driver crashed deliberately, it was an accident. That doesn't mean nobody was at fault. It only means it wasn't deliberate. Just like a "hunting accident" doesn't mean nobody pulled the trigger, it means they did not intentionally shoot a person. (For which the former US VP is grateful, I'm sure)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision

http://www.thaiwebsites.com/caraccidents.asp

http://www.thenational.ae/uae/transport/run-overs-account-for-18-of-traffic-accidents-last-year

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/road-traffic-accidents/by-country/

Edited May 17, 2015 by impulse

[Si Thea01]

Here's 4 websites that disagree with the above- from several different countries. I can link 1000 more if you'd like... Unless the driver crashed deliberately, it was an accident. That doesn't mean nobody was at fault. It only means it wasn't deliberate. Just like a "hunting accident" doesn't mean nobody pulled the trigger, it means they did not intentionally shoot a person. (For which the former US VP is grateful, I'm sure)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision

http://www.thaiwebsites.com/caraccidents.asp

http://www.thenational.ae/uae/transport/run-overs-account-for-18-of-traffic-accidents-last-year

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/road-traffic-accidents/by-country/

Please do the 1000 links then also show the links that correspond with what I have written. But thanks for taking your time to promote your argument.

A small quote from your first reference"

Some organizations have begun to avoid the term "accident".

Your second reference is Thailand and yes they do refer to the matters as accidents. However, once a person is charged with serious offense the incident goes beyond the bounds of the definition of the word, accident.

Your third reference is from Abu Dhabi, and yes they also call them accidents, however, please note that they too take the matters past the actual definition of an accident. Quote

"These accidents were caused by lack of consideration for road users (47 per cent), not giving priority to pedestrians (23 per cent) and speeding without taking road conditions into account (8 per cent). Other causes included negligence and inattention (6 per cent) and backing up without making sure that the way is clear (6 per cent)"

And you call these accidents, as per the definition I provide earlier? Don't think so.

Your fourth example is a graph and yes it shows the percentage of death rates per 100,000 and the heading is Road Traffic Accidents. Sorry but this proves nothing. What is it that you do not understand about the definitions provided and why organisations world wide, are changing the way in which they describe accidents. Now the preferred options are collisions or crashes.

Edited May 17, 2015 by Si Thea01

[impulse]

Please do the 1000 links then also show the links that correspond with what I have written.

I'll gladly respond to any reputable references that back your claim. As for your claim itself, without credible backup, it's immaterial.

Heck, I'll even apologize if you prove me wrong.

[Si Thea01]

Please do the 1000 links then also show the links that correspond with what I have written.

I'll gladly respond to any reputable references that back your claim. As for your claim itself, without credible backup, it's immaterial.

Heck, I'll even apologize if you prove me wrong.

Being an ex-law enforcement officer, with a number of years spent in the Crash Unit of the NSW Police and then, after retiring, starting my own private Investigation company, employing 15 staff and being contracted to 20 major insurers throughout Australia. I do not think that what I point out to you is immaterial. I and my staff investigated over 10,000 claims involving motor vehicle crashes, so despite what you think, I know that I've had over 40 years experience in such matters. And yes, when we first commenced operations they were referred to as accidents but quickly changed in name to reflect the difference between an accident and crash.

You wanted some examples.

Here's one.

http://prosecutorsdiscretion.blogspot.com/2012/06/difference-between-accident-and.html

Here's two.

http://www.roadpeace.org/resources/Crash_Not_Accident_April_2007.pdf

Here's three.

http://www.bstreetsmart.org/Road-Safety/NSW-Police-Crash-Investigation/

Like you I could go one and on but if this is not enough to satisfy your needs, then I will just give up because if you cannot accept what these sites highlight, then what chance have I, as an individual, of convincing you. Enjoy your reading, as I enjoyed yours.

[newnative]

Thanks, Si Thea01, for taking the time to explain everything so clearly. I agree with all you said. It's easy to see why countries are moving away from using the word accident, as well they should, as it implies no wrong doing.

[PaPiPuPePo]

Kill somebody and get a $200 fine.

You're leaving out the 1 year jail term because that suits you better.

And you're leaving out that it was suspended because that suits *you* better.

[jackanapes]

absolutely disgraceful 7;500 baht the price of a mans life a fine what in the world is happening in Thailand this is pitiful I wonder what the people think in chile no good thoughts here.

[impulse]

Like you I could go one and on but if this is not enough to satisfy your needs, then I will just give up because if you cannot accept what these sites highlight, then what chance have I, as an individual, of convincing you. Enjoy your reading, as I enjoyed yours.

Great links. Thanks for the education. I cautiously salute the campaign to have them referred to as crashes instead of accidents. But in the here and now, Thailand in 2015:

The Thailand Department of Land Transportation refers to them as accidents.

The Thailand Department of Highways refers to them as accidents.

The Nation and Bangkok Post refer to them as accidents.

The World Health Organization refers to them as accidents.

The World Bank refers to them as accidents.

The United Nations refers to them as accidents.

The International Road Federation refers to them as accidents.

And the first 2 or 3 above are the pertinent definitions for the trial of the driver we’re discussing. But I can see why others may feel they’re in error.

I see NSW is referring to them as crashes, the University of Michigan and The Global Road Safety Partnership (Under the Red Cross) refer to them as crashes. So there's a case to be made that's the way the world is headed. We'll see.

I’m always skeptical when commercial interests and special interest groups try to change vocabulary in a way that can affect the outcome of lawsuits, insurance settlements and criminal proceedings. I’d be curious to know how it affects compensation, and insurance treatment of victims and the parties at fault when an incident moves from the accident to the crash category.

But that’s a topic to discuss if we ever meet each other over a meal. Believe it or not, I do enjoy learning new stuff that changes my mind about beliefs I hold that serve me poorly.

[jackanapes]

it doesn't matter how much jargon is applied to this case you must not differentiate you drive a car or a truck they are classed as lethal weapons you kill someone you pay the price a fine of 7;5oo baht and a years imprisonment is pitiful an absolute disgrace .

[impulse]

it doesn't matter how much jargon is applied to this case you must not differentiate you drive a car or a truck they are classed as lethal weapons you kill someone you pay the price a fine of 7;5oo baht and a years imprisonment is pitiful an absolute disgrace .

Right up until it's you or a loved one behind the wheel looking at years and years in a Thai prison because you lost focus for 2 seconds, or your tire blew out, or you misjudged a curve, or you swerved to avoid hitting a pedestrian..or..or...

[Neeranam]

it doesn't matter how much jargon is applied to this case you must not differentiate you drive a car or a truck they are classed as lethal weapons you kill someone you pay the price a fine of 7;5oo baht and a years imprisonment is pitiful an absolute disgrace .

Who the hell do you think you are to tell the Thai justice system what to do?

[Si Thea01]

Like you I could go one and on but if this is not enough to satisfy your needs, then I will just give up because if you cannot accept what these sites highlight, then what chance have I, as an individual, of convincing you. Enjoy your reading, as I enjoyed yours.

Great links. Thanks for the education. I cautiously salute the campaign to have them referred to as crashes instead of accidents. But in the here and now, Thailand in 2015:

The Thailand Department of Land Transportation refers to them as accidents.

The Thailand Department of Highways refers to them as accidents.

The Nation and Bangkok Post refer to them as accidents.

The World Health Organization refers to them as accidents.

The World Bank refers to them as accidents.

The United Nations refers to them as accidents.

The International Road Federation refers to them as accidents.

And the first 2 or 3 above are the pertinent definitions for the trial of the driver we’re discussing. But I can see why others may feel they’re in error.

I see NSW is referring to them as crashes, the University of Michigan and The Global Road Safety Partnership (Under the Red Cross) refer to them as crashes. So there's a case to be made that's the way the world is headed. We'll see.

I’m always skeptical when commercial interests and special interest groups try to change vocabulary in a way that can affect the outcome of lawsuits, insurance settlements and criminal proceedings. I’d be curious to know how it affects compensation, and insurance treatment of victims and the parties at fault when an incident moves from the accident to the crash category.

But that’s a topic to discuss if we ever meet each other over a meal. Believe it or not, I do enjoy learning new stuff that changes my mind about beliefs I hold that serve me poorly.

Yes, I fully understand that in Thailand they refer to crashes as accidents but it is Thailand and they do not have rules the same as we have back home. Maybe one day they will progress, only time will tell. However, if you have followed these cases, then you will see how they did not stay with the true meaning of the word, accident but proceed more toward the definition of crash, as they charged both parties with reckless driving, no doubt owing to the police deeming them to be the party at fault.

It was police who first alluded to the changes in terminology and even though commercial interests and lawyers followed suit, it allowed, through those changes, the victims a much easier pathway when it came to seeking compensation via the lodgement of a third party claim. As I have been out of the business for some 8 years now, there have been many changes to the compensation act, which I am not familiar with.

However, as I still have contact with many friends, police, lawyers and private investigators, I know that they still rely on the definitions when arguing a case. You will never find a prosecutor in NSW referring to a matter as an accident, as it will jeopardise the victim's case, hence the name change by Police from accident investigation to crash investigation. Believe me, it is all relevant. And yes maybe one day, a quite beer over some good food.

Edited May 17, 2015 by Si Thea01

[chubby]

at least tribal arabs, have blood money, but maybe farmers, can't pay, maybe should lose a pinky or something

[Sawan Chan 7]

at least tribal arabs, have blood money, but maybe farmers, can't pay, maybe should lose a pinky or something

Please say what you mean in English.