Thai-English actress 'Anna Reese' kills cop in car crash

[rametindallas]

Im sure she is using her `Acting skills to the utmost in the video ..maybe she thinks she will get some `Pity ?? im sure the poor person (man) in the car isnt acting ... when will women realise that a speeding car is not a fashion accessory .. it is a dangerous weapon when driven by stupid people.. maybe she thinks she is someone special because she is an `Actress,,and just does what she wants .. i feel really sorry for the mans wife and family.. since she only just spoke to him ... before it happend ...... why is she even allowed to be looking into the car ... crazy !!

Im sure she is using her `Acting skills to the utmost in the video

As long as you're sure... and there's no room for doubt.

.

[Si Thea01]

Speed kills. And she must have been motoring. Hope they spend that poor copper's life for something.

Speed doesn't kill , lack of attention signals and awareness kills.

Sorry to disagree but speed is a major contributing factor in both the number and severity of crashes. I'll try and keep it simple so you will understand. Now, as speed increases so does a driver's reaction time to stop and the distance to stop also increases.

Also, higher the speed, the greater the amount of kinetic (moving) energy that must be absorbed by the impact of the crash. I suggest you look this up and understand it's relationship to speed and that the higher the speed the more likely hood of death occurring at impact. The equation used to determine the amount of energy is KE = 0.5 * mv2. M stands for mass (weight) whilst v stands for velocity. (speed)

In various investigations carried out, speed has been determined as the causal factor in 40% of fatal crashes, as well as an aggravating factor in the severity of all crashes. At higher speeds vehicles also become more difficult to manoeuvre, therefore increasing the risk of losing control, in particular, if evasive action is necessary.

I am not trying to be smart just pointing out that what you have indicated is incorrect. And I know this, as prior to retiring I was a Police crash investigator and upon leaving the force established my own company which was contracted by numerous insurance companies to investigate catastrophic motor vehicle crashes that resulted in death or serious injuries.

True, yet the roads that have the most traffic and where vehicles drive the fastest (i.e. highways) are also the safest per passenger/km driven.

I would agree to say that speed that is excessive considered the road's circumstances is the most dangerous.

Under the right circumstances, a speed of 200 Kph can be safe.

Yes, I agree with you, that under the right circumstances a vehicle can be driven safely at a speed of 200 kph. Now the right circumstances, as far as I am concerned, would be a test driver testing a new vehicle/cycle on a closed track, a race car driver in a race and a situation where a fully experienced driver, one who had advanced driver training, is in control and there are no other vehicles or pedestrians in close proximity. And lastly, the type of vehicle being driven. I would rather be in a late model Audi, Mercedes, BMW or other vehicles that have above average inbuilt protection but even then I would be a little apprehensive about travelling at that speed.

I would find it difficult to locate a public thoroughfare anywhere in Thailand, or elsewhere in the world, with a few exceptions, where this would be applicable, given the way roads are constructed road and then you have the lack of driver experience. As I've never been to Germany to travel on their autobahns or know the crash statistics related to speed on them, I cannot comment in that instance but given what others state, then it may well be safe travelling at that speed. I have ridden a motorcycle at over 200 kph but this was on a race track and under a controlled situation. it is exhilarating but again there is that apprehension, which I think most of us have, but then there are those few who are brain dead and do not register and responses. These types and those with the lack of experience around me cause me the most concern.

I never said that it was unsafe to drive at a high speed just that at higher speeds it was more difficult to manoeuvre. I also pointed out that the poster was incorrect when he stated that speed did not kill, which I see that many agree with. It is beyond me to see others who disagree but that is their opinion, however, in my instance I base my response on facts.

Edited June 29, 2015 by Si Thea01

[Derek M]

Pretty sure no questions will be asked as to hop the cop could afford a mercedes at 2-3million Baht on a paltry salary.

Story of Thailand, two wrongs don't make a right! ,

[thaicatbuyer]

What/Why is the policeman sleeping in his car on the inside of the motorway, most likely without any lights on, he should know better, move to the outside, frontage street and park your car you want to sleep, 100 kph is slow on the inside motorway lanes, especially at 3 am when not many cars on the road, cannot blame the girl to much.........sorry for his death ....Rest in Peace

Edited June 29, 2015 by thaicatbuyer

[Ace of Pop]

Ting is she had a nice car this happens every day. Farmer Nop in his old truck doesn't upset the malcontent members

[Yunla]

The main problem with the post-crash situation is the lack of alcohol-testing which should have been taken immediately or certainly within a short reasonable time. Beyond that we don't know what happened. We have an eyewitness report of a motorbike swerving, and maybe there was. A recent survey showed that 75% of convictions that were ultimately overturned by DNA evidence, were initially convicted based on eyewitness testimony. That is not to say people are always lying, but people do make honest eyewitness mistakes.

Anna Reese was driving fast, but we do not know if she was driving drunk, and this is a truly jaw-dropping failure of standard road-accident procedure. As it stands, without a blood-alcohol reading of the driver, it is a tragic accident resulting from an unfortunate series of events. This is another reminder that when nations embrace car culture, they should also prioritise vehicle-safety tests, driving-skills training/testing, strict regulations on the roads, strict codes of conduct at accident scenes. These things save countless lives, and where lives cannot be saved, they provide some sense of justice and closure for the families of victims.

[apetley]

Pretty sure no questions will be asked as to hop the cop could afford a mercedes at 2-3million Baht on a paltry salary.

Story of Thailand, two wrongs don't make a right! ,

Did you even read the op?

The cop was in a marked police car.

The actress was in her Merc.

[Ace of Pop]

Why no one check the tinted windows. A major cause of night crashes.

[Orac]

One thing that does not appear to have been discussed is the witness report. Initially he said that he saw them racing but in a later report it becomes they were both speeding then he heard the bike slow down quickly but the car keeps going. Could it be that they were both racing/speeding when the bike rider saw the police car stopped by the side of the road and slowed down quickly. This may have distracted the car driver causing the 'swerve' she claims she made to avoid the bike.

[manarak]

Speed kills. And she must have been motoring. Hope they spend that poor copper's life for something.

Sorry to disagree but speed is a major contributing factor in both the number and severity of crashes. I'll try and keep it simple so you will understand. Now, as speed increases so does a driver's reaction time to stop and the distance to stop also increases.

Also, higher the speed, the greater the amount of kinetic (moving) energy that must be absorbed by the impact of the crash. I suggest you look this up and understand it's relationship to speed and that the higher the speed the more likely hood of death occurring at impact. The equation used to determine the amount of energy is KE = 0.5 * mv2. M stands for mass (weight) whilst v stands for velocity. (speed)

In various investigations carried out, speed has been determined as the causal factor in 40% of fatal crashes, as well as an aggravating factor in the severity of all crashes. At higher speeds vehicles also become more difficult to manoeuvre, therefore increasing the risk of losing control, in particular, if evasive action is necessary.

I am not trying to be smart just pointing out that what you have indicated is incorrect. And I know this, as prior to retiring I was a Police crash investigator and upon leaving the force established my own company which was contracted by numerous insurance companies to investigate catastrophic motor vehicle crashes that resulted in death or serious injuries.

True, yet the roads that have the most traffic and where vehicles drive the fastest (i.e. highways) are also the safest per passenger/km driven.

I would agree to say that speed that is excessive considered the road's circumstances is the most dangerous.

Under the right circumstances, a speed of 200 Kph can be safe.

Yes, I agree with you, that under the right circumstances a vehicle can be driven safely at a speed of 200 kph. Now the right circumstances, as far as I am concerned, would be a test driver testing a new vehicle/cycle on a closed track, a race car driver in a race and a situation where a fully experienced driver, one who had advanced driver training, is in control and there are no other vehicles or pedestrians in close proximity. And lastly, the type of vehicle being driven. I would rather be in a late model Audi, Mercedes, BMW or other vehicles that have above average inbuilt protection but even then I would be a little apprehensive about travelling at that speed.

I would find it difficult to locate a public thoroughfare anywhere in Thailand, or elsewhere in the world, with a few exceptions, where this would be applicable, given the way roads are constructed road and then you have the lack of driver experience. As I've never been to Germany to travel on their autobahns or know the crash statistics related to speed on them, I cannot comment in that instance but given what others state, then it may well be safe travelling at that speed. I have ridden a motorcycle at over 200 kph but this was on a race track and under a controlled situation. it is exhilarating but again there is that apprehension, which I think most of us have, but then there are those few who are brain dead and do not register and responses. These types and those with the lack of experience around me cause me the most concern.

I never said that it was unsafe to drive at a high speed just that at higher speeds it was more difficult to manoeuvre. I also pointed out that the poster was incorrect when he stated that speed did not kill, which I see that many agree with. It is beyond me to see others who disagree but that is their opinion, however, in my instance I base my response on facts.

Germany has several long stretches of Autobahn allowing for safe speeds of up to 250 Kph or even more, but the conditions have to be right - for example 5 am after daybreak, dry, good visibility both atmospheric and line of sight on the road, very light traffic.

I am one of those that disagree with the statement that speed kills - speed is not the root cause of a crash or a fatality, the root cause at the end is always a stupid driver lacking awareness / judgement / discipline, often also lacking skill. And then speed makes sure the driving mistake isn't forgiven...

It always boils down to going at the wrong speed for the conditions, I include in the latter the driver himself.

Edited June 29, 2015 by manarak

[Thai at Heart]

People seem to be getting a little too carried away with the whole speed issue here - 100 KM/hour is only 62 MPH - that's not very fast.

Depending upon the circumstances, it can be then it may not be but please don't get hit be a vehicle at that speed, why, because you will never know what hit you.

62 mph is ordinarily a fatal speed for someone.I suppose small mercies for Mercedes technology and the fact that the car was.pushed off the road into a tree.

[kannot]

I guarantee she was texting...

Whilst drunk?? thats terrible, probably illegible.......sorry but its in as much bad taste as "how things are here" anyway

You two are making it up as you go along,fairy tales.You have been sucked in by TVF's usual form of giving half a story,definetly anti Thai and all you spinners come in like the tide.After all Thai bashers have vented,TVF will leak a bit more of the story,contradicting the first story and TB will have egg on their faces as usual,but no apologies.This is how TVF make money and when they have posters like you two and many others they will profit.You are being used in the bigger game of profit,me too if it comes to that,but somebody must contradict your rubbish.

I coudlnt care less...............does that help?

[Thai at Heart]

Speed kills. And she must have been motoring. Hope they spend that poor copper's life for something.

Speed doesn't kill , lack of attention signals and awareness kills.

Sorry to disagree but speed is a major contributing factor in both the number and severity of crashes. I'll try and keep it simple so you will understand. Now, as speed increases so does a driver's reaction time to stop and the distance to stop also increases.

Also, higher the speed, the greater the amount of kinetic (moving) energy that must be absorbed by the impact of the crash. I suggest you look this up and understand it's relationship to speed and that the higher the speed the more likely hood of death occurring at impact. The equation used to determine the amount of energy is KE = 0.5 * mv2. M stands for mass (weight) whilst v stands for velocity. (speed)

In various investigations carried out, speed has been determined as the causal factor in 40% of fatal crashes, as well as an aggravating factor in the severity of all crashes. At higher speeds vehicles also become more difficult to manoeuvre, therefore increasing the risk of losing control, in particular, if evasive action is necessary.

I am not trying to be smart just pointing out that what you have indicated is incorrect. And I know this, as prior to retiring I was a Police crash investigator and upon leaving the force established my own company which was contracted by numerous insurance companies to investigate catastrophic motor vehicle crashes that resulted in death or serious injuries.

True, yet the roads that have the most traffic and where vehicles drive the fastest (i.e. highways) are also the safest per passenger/km driven.

I would agree to say that speed that is excessive considered the road's circumstances is the most dangerous.

Under the right circumstances, a speed of 200 Kph can be safe.

Yes, I agree with you, that under the right circumstances a vehicle can be driven safely at a speed of 200 kph. Now the right circumstances, as far as I am concerned, would be a test driver testing a new vehicle/cycle on a closed track, a race car driver in a race and a situation where a fully experienced driver, one who had advanced driver training, is in control and there are no other vehicles or pedestrians in close proximity. And lastly, the type of vehicle being driven. I would rather be in a late model Audi, Mercedes, BMW or other vehicles that have above average inbuilt protection but even then I would be a little apprehensive about travelling at that speed.

I would find it difficult to locate a public thoroughfare anywhere in Thailand, or elsewhere in the world, with a few exceptions, where this would be applicable, given the way roads are constructed road and then you have the lack of driver experience. As I've never been to Germany to travel on their autobahns or know the crash statistics related to speed on them, I cannot comment in that instance but given what others state, then it may well be safe travelling at that speed. I have ridden a motorcycle at over 200 kph but this was on a race track and under a controlled situation. it is exhilarating but again there is that apprehension, which I think most of us have, but then there are those few who are brain dead and do not register and responses. These types and those with the lack of experience around me cause me the most concern.

I never said that it was unsafe to drive at a high speed just that at higher speeds it was more difficult to manoeuvre. I also pointed out that the poster was incorrect when he stated that speed did not kill, which I see that many agree with. It is beyond me to see others who disagree but that is their opinion, however, in my instance I base my response on facts.

Agree completely. Particularly in urban environments, driving at 60 or 50 kph can be the only mitigating factor as to whether a crash is fatal or not.

Motorways are the safest roads, but part of the problem in having 200 mph roads is that some feel safe at 100 mph, others 150 and others 200.

Thus you have created closing impact speeds of 100mph even though the traffic is all going in the same direction.

[mike324]

People should note that not all Thai actors/actresses are rich, most are not and Thai salaries are also pretty low. The only rich ones are the ones you see plaster all over advertisements, lakorn stars don't make much money too.

The police are crap for letting her go home, if she was a nobody she would have been held in jail waiting for bail.

She wasn't driving a Nissan March but a late model Mercedes, so she wasn't exactly struggling.

Yea she isn't exactly struggling, but many Thais drive bmw and mercedes with car installments....

You don't buy a late model Mercedes on a "low salary", it would take you 20 years to pay for it. I don't know what she's worth, but obviously enough to get preferential treatment from the police.

I've seen office workers who make 50,000 baht / month drive bmw and mercedes, do you consider that as "low salary" to drive a luxury car? They spend more than half of their salary paying the car loans...

But then again, there are a lot of folks who drive normal japanese cars and take up to 20 years to pay it off too....

[Jonmarleesco]

'"I would like to urge motorists to drive carefully, or else you might deprive other people of their beloved ones," Chantana said.'

We're in Thailand, the land of motoring fools and 'horses'. But if the police pursue this to its conclusion, I trust it will reincarnate the question of the Red Bull Wonder, and persuade the police to actively pursue him and actually arrest and charge him.

[CarolJadzia]

One thing that does not appear to have been discussed is the witness report. Initially he said that he saw them racing but in a later report it becomes they were both speeding then he heard the bike slow down quickly but the car keeps going. Could it be that they were both racing/speeding when the bike rider saw the police car stopped by the side of the road and slowed down quickly. This may have distracted the car driver causing the 'swerve' she claims she made to avoid the bike.

Fink your right, plus a big bike slamming the anchors on, cos he spots the BiB, would probably out brake the saloon causing the swerve..

This is the normal reason for most accidents. Like I have said before here. Accidents tend to be the result of normal people doing normal things they normally do every day.

It's the Surprise that leads to the accident.

Maybe the police car being spotted was the cause of her loosing control. How ironic would that be?

But maybes are not going to change anything. Lets learn lessons on avoiding it happening to us.

[CarolJadzia]

Pulling out without looking. How often do you see that?

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/836518-hotel-handyman-killed-in-south-pattaya-road-crash/?utm_source=newsletter-20150629-0757&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=news

This was meant for the Motorcycle thread. But makes a point here as well.

Edited June 29, 2015 by CarolJadzia

[ukrules]

The main problem with the post-crash situation is the lack of alcohol-testing which should have been taken immediately or certainly within a short reasonable time. Beyond that we don't know what happened. We have an eyewitness report of a motorbike swerving, and maybe there was. A recent survey showed that 75% of convictions that were ultimately overturned by DNA evidence, were initially convicted based on eyewitness testimony. That is not to say people are always lying, but people do make honest eyewitness mistakes.

Anna Reese was driving fast, but we do not know if she was driving drunk, and this is a truly jaw-dropping failure of standard road-accident procedure. As it stands, without a blood-alcohol reading of the driver, it is a tragic accident resulting from an unfortunate series of events. This is another reminder that when nations embrace car culture, they should also prioritise vehicle-safety tests, driving-skills training/testing, strict regulations on the roads, strict codes of conduct at accident scenes. These things save countless lives, and where lives cannot be saved, they provide some sense of justice and closure for the families of victims.

There is no evidence of alcohol consumption so it will be disregarded and we will now never know one way or the other, anything else is pure speculation.

I'm going to be very surprised if many police patrol cars are equipped with reliable and calibrated test equipment which would stand up to a well funded challenge in court. I'm basing this on what's happened in Europe in the past regarding equipment and calibration. This kind of evidence gathering apparatus needs to be maintained to a high standard or the results it gives will be worthless.

Remember, we live in a country where those GT200 bomb detectors are apparently still in use. How much faith would you put in breathalyser test gear ?

[Sviss Geez]

you trip over on the floor and bang your head at a slow speed and it can still kill you, ask the Germans why they aren't all dying in droves on their autobahns (unrestricted) its because they pay attention to their surroundings

On roads built for 200+kph traffic, organised lanes for those 'aware' kinds of speed and drivers in machines capable of executing controlled speed.

Yet what moron would try that here.

A fool, (and there are plenty of those here), her and you seemingly.

Great analogy

"On roads built for 200+kph traffic, organised lanes for those 'aware' kinds of speed and drivers in machines capable of executing controlled speed."

Like a Mercedes, yes?

[Sviss Geez]

Two people made mistakes (possibly three including the motorcyclist), like we all do. Just one of those people is now dead.

We are discussing it here because the other one of those people was a celebrity.

If that is not the case why are the other sixteen or so deaths that happen every day on Thai roads not being talked about with so much interest?

(Edit: Of course there will be peaks and troughs as there are huge peaks around Songkran for instance, but that's the average)

You think I exaggerate?

"A study this year (2014) showed that Thailand ranked number two of road fatalities in the world, with 44 road deaths per 100,000 people. Fatalities from road accidents made up 5.1 percent of Thailand’s overall deaths. According to the Royal Thai Police, there were 6,185 deaths as a result of road traffic incidents between October 2013 and September 2014 (4,610 males and 1,575 females). In comparing statistics it should be noted that there is a difference in the method of calculating statistics for road deaths in Thailand (at the scene of the accident) and the WHO (within 30 days of the accident)."

https://www.gov.uk/government/world-location-news/2014-world-day-of-remembrance-for-road-traffic-victims

You can download the full report as well if you wanted to read more : http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/road_safety_status/2013/en/

6185 / 365 = 16.94 lets say that's sixteen a day.

But you know this already, you deal with it every day.

Every Thai friend I have spoken to has seen someone die on the roads. Some many more than once.

Yes I have limited experience of Thailand, I am a English Motorcycle Instructor, what do I know about Thailand?

In fact I have openly asked for people to comment on my riding in Thailand -

I ride as best I can to our Police Roadcraft Standards and have spent many years learning defensive riding techniques.

However I am always looking for new ideas, new ways to keep us motorcyclists alive on the roads.

The latest ideas in the UK are to avoid such accidents in the first place. We all have the skills and abilities to do so.

I know some here will attack me with the usual TiT argument, Most people who have passed their driving test think they are a good driver (It's always someone else who needs training or is a bad driver).

I don't claim I can wave a magic want and make Thailand safe. But it can be done.

I hope at least a few of you will take the time to have a look at this.

http://nosurprise.org.uk/

It is not about pointing fingers and blaming anyone. Just avoiding the event happening in the first place. Taking responsibility for our own actions. I include myself in this, we are all still learning.

"I ride as best I can to our Police Roadcraft Standards..."

Presumably that includes your riding on the pavement, overtaking on the inside, constantly crossing continuous white lines and riding on the hard shoulder? Police roadcraft standards seem to have have dropped dramatically since I was familiar with them or maybe it's just you.

"How's my riding"? Not good, you would have failed.

Edited June 29, 2015 by Sviss Geez

[CarolJadzia]

Two people made mistakes (possibly three including the motorcyclist), like we all do. Just one of those people is now dead.

We are discussing it here because the other one of those people was a celebrity.

If that is not the case why are the other sixteen or so deaths that happen every day on Thai roads not being talked about with so much interest?

(Edit: Of course there will be peaks and troughs as there are huge peaks around Songkran for instance, but that's the average)

You think I exaggerate?

"A study this year (2014) showed that Thailand ranked number two of road fatalities in the world, with 44 road deaths per 100,000 people. Fatalities from road accidents made up 5.1 percent of Thailand’s overall deaths. According to the Royal Thai Police, there were 6,185 deaths as a result of road traffic incidents between October 2013 and September 2014 (4,610 males and 1,575 females). In comparing statistics it should be noted that there is a difference in the method of calculating statistics for road deaths in Thailand (at the scene of the accident) and the WHO (within 30 days of the accident)."

https://www.gov.uk/government/world-location-news/2014-world-day-of-remembrance-for-road-traffic-victims

You can download the full report as well if you wanted to read more : http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/road_safety_status/2013/en/

6185 / 365 = 16.94 lets say that's sixteen a day.

But you know this already, you deal with it every day.

Every Thai friend I have spoken to has seen someone die on the roads. Some many more than once.

Yes I have limited experience of Thailand, I am a English Motorcycle Instructor, what do I know about Thailand?

In fact I have openly asked for people to comment on my riding in Thailand -

I ride as best I can to our Police Roadcraft Standards and have spent many years learning defensive riding techniques.

However I am always looking for new ideas, new ways to keep us motorcyclists alive on the roads.

The latest ideas in the UK are to avoid such accidents in the first place. We all have the skills and abilities to do so.

I know some here will attack me with the usual TiT argument, Most people who have passed their driving test think they are a good driver (It's always someone else who needs training or is a bad driver).

I don't claim I can wave a magic want and make Thailand safe. But it can be done.

I hope at least a few of you will take the time to have a look at this.

http://nosurprise.org.uk/

It is not about pointing fingers and blaming anyone. Just avoiding the event happening in the first place. Taking responsibility for our own actions. I include myself in this, we are all still learning.

"I ride as best I can to our Police Roadcraft Standards..."

Presumably that includes your riding on the pavement, overtaking on the inside, constantly crossing continuous white lines and riding on the hard shoulder? Police roadcraft standards seem to have have dropped dramatically since I was familiar with them or maybe it's just you.

"How's my riding"? Not good, you would have failed.

Hows your knowledge of Thai laws?

The Motorcycle lanes around Phuket are supposed to be used by motorcycles instead of the main carriageway. You want to fault me then the correct law braking in that case would be using the main carriageway instead of the motorcycle lane. Yes, bang to rights officer on that one. Because I was unhappy about undertaking anything. But that's the way it is. Check your Thai traffic laws. Or get your Thai friends to tell you what it says on the road in the video.

Where in the video did I constantly cross any white correction - That's me copying you, line markings in Thailand are Yellow line? Please tell me? I know where I could the end of one as the pickup truck in front had pulled over to let me pass. Really? Is that the best you can do?

So I rode across the pavement when leaving the motorcycle parking area at the hotel. Well lock me up and throw away the key!!!

Edited June 29, 2015 by CarolJadzia

[Si Thea01]

Why on earth is she wailing in the middle of the road an not sat cuffed in the back of a cop car ?

Pal have you every thought that she tried to avoid the bike and swerved into the cop car by trying to miss the bike, that was the account that was given by a security guard that was nearby you old fart? SO DID YOU WITNESS THE ACCIDENT YOURSELF...MMMMMMMM.....WHAT WAS A COP DOING A SLEEP ON THE HYWAY ANYWAYS....PAL THAT'S WHY IT'S CALLED AN ACCIDENT BECAUSE IT WAS JUST THAT.... I'M SURE SHE DIDN'T GO OUT OF HER WAY TO KILL THIS COP OK, please pal stop with your pathetic illogical comment....

Now, I was not there and only know what has been reported but in the Coconuts report that I read it indicated that the security guard saw her Mercedes speeding along side a big bike and it appeared they were racing. There was no mention of her having swerved whilst trying to miss the bike. Is this something you concocted to sustain your response?

What was the cop doing asleep on the highway, the way you write, it suggests he was on the roadway, not in the stationary police vehicle. Why don't you take time to read the media reports, if you did then you would see that the officer's wife had been spoken to, and alleged that he had rang her some time before and told her that he had become lost and decided to pull over and rest before setting off again.

Tell me, why do you find the need to yell in you post, it's not polite and tends to suggest that one has difficulty in articulating their opinion in a sensible and calm manner. How do you know the poster is an old fart and given your response I'd doubt he'd want you as his pal? But given the manner in which you post, one can see the rudeness you proffer.

You call it an accident so maybe you did read some of the media report, which also indicated that a police officer referred to it as an accident. I not only disagree with him but also yourself for referring to it as such. Maybe you should begin to understand the subtleties of meaning before making such a rash statement.

Now if you did understand, then you would realise that the word, "Accident" implies that there was no one at fault, that the whole incident was a mistake and there was no one to blame. But this is not true, there is someone who has acted illegally and/or negligently and through those actions has caused the collision and death of another person. I believe she is or will be charged with negligent/dangerous driving occasioning death. Is that an accident in your book? Not in mine and by using the word "Crash" it implies "Fault", which clearly there is in this incident.

Your last sentence is more applicable to yourself. And of course she did not intentionally cause the death of the officer but through either negligent or dangerous driving she certainly did.

In so far as police allowing her run around the crash site, touch the deceased and later leave the scene, the officer in charge has been totally negligent and has a lot to answer for. Of course she would be traumatised but this does not prevent them from detaining her (without handcuffs), placing her in a police vehicle and then conveying her immediately to the nearest hospital for drug and alcohol testing. There is no need to interview until she is capable but failing to have her undertake those tests and leave the scene is clearly a criminal act on behalf of the police officer in charge.

[CarolJadzia]

Very well written Si Thea. But you are back to playing the blame game with only half the facts again.

Why do you have to blame one person?

In 1947 investigations of military aviation accidents concluded that pilot errors were the cause of the crashes. · Fitts and Jones empirically studied pilot performance in the cockpit and showed how systematic factors in interpreting instruments and operating controls produced misassessments and actions not as intended (see Fitts and Jones, 1947). The implicit assumption was that the person closest to the failure was the cause. Investigators saw that the aircraft was in principle flyable and that other pilots were able to fly such aircraft successfully. They could show how the necessary data were available for the pilot to correctly identify the actual situation and act in an appropriate way. Since the pilot was the human closest to the accident who could have acted differently, it seemed obvious to conclude that the pilot was the cause of the failure. Fitts and his colleague empirically looked for factors that could have influenced the performance of the pilots. They found that, given the design of the displays and layout of the controls, people relatively often misread instruments or operated the wrong control, especially when task demands were high. The misreadings and misoperations were design-induced in the sense that researchers could link properties of interface design to these erroneous actions and assessments. In other words, the “errors” were not random events, rather they resulted from understandable, regular, and predictable aspects of the design of the tools practitioners used. The researchers found that misreadings and misoperations occurred, but did not always lead to accidents due to two factors. First, pilots often detected these errors before negative consequences occurred. Second, the misreadings 3 and misoperations alone did not lead directly to an accident. Disaster or near misses usually occurred only when these errors occurred in combination with other factors or other circumstances. In the end, the constructive solution was not to conclude that pilots err, but rather to understand principles and techniques for the design of visual displays and control layout. Changing the artifacts used by pilots changed the demands on human perception and cognition and changed the performance of pilots.

https://www.nifc.gov/PUBLICATIONS/acc_invest_march2010/speakers/Perspectives%20on%20Human%20Error.pdf

How To Stop Fighting Fires And Start Solving Chronic Safety Problems

They investigate every single accident, first aid case, or near hit, looking for a root cause. They don’t understand the fallacy of root cause analysis and ultimately place blame for the accident on the employee that was injured for not following procedures. When a system is stable, influenced only by common causes, there is no such thing as THE CAUSE. Their solutions for safety problems are incomplete. Often, this means a temporary quick fix is made to prevent an accident but the real causes of why the problem exists are never addressed. The patch is accepted as being “good enough” or “better than doing nothing at all.” Accidents reoccur and negatively influence other operations. When you allow the cause of a problem to continue, accidents tend to repeat, causing low morale, lack of respect for management, and a general attitude of just giving up when it comes to safety.

http://www.mocalinc.com/uploads/2/7/4/9/2749872/how_to_stop_fighting_fires_and_start_solving_chronic_safety_problems.pdf

There were potentially three people involved, possibly all doing little or nothing wrong. Mayne the car was racing a bike and they saw the police car, surprised they panicked (either car or bike) causing the car to loose control and hit the police car.

Actually there is a paper on it as well. Target Fixation.

Clark et al. studied pilot errors due to "fascination," concentration on some object or task that caused loss of voluntary control over response. They divided fascination into subcategories with the quote above exemplifying Type B-2, where pilots suffering felt drawn to a target and could not avoid the attraction. If the target is a light viewed at night, then the phenomenon is now called the "moth to the flame effect" or more often simply the "moth effect."²The moth effect has also long been discussed by motorcycle riders, who call the phenomenon "target fixation". The NHTSA-funded "Model National Standards For Entry-Level Motorcycle Rider Training" includes target fixation as a rider hazard: "staring at the object you are trying to avoid. Associated with riders striking obstacles they were attempting to avoid." The standard warns riders to avoid such behavior. ³

http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/motheffect.html

The fact that she hit the police car could have been down to the panic when she saw it, after all possibly seeing the police car on the motorway could have caused her to think she was about to get caught speeding? That surprise could have been enough. But here I go, making assumptions with only half facts.

Best to learn that its normal every day people doing normal everyday things along with what ever you class as 'normal' in LOS are the ones who are going to have the accidents.

You want some more reaserch on the subject try http://nosurprise.org.uk/research-papers-and-resources-library/

[CarolJadzia]

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/836689-two-cops-hit-by-drunk-drivers-in-bangkok-on-same-night/?utm_source=newsletter-20150630-0731&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=news

[kannot]

Very well written Si Thea. But you are back to playing the blame game with only half the facts again.

Why do you have to blame one person?

In 1947 investigations of military aviation accidents concluded that pilot errors were the cause of the crashes. · Fitts and Jones empirically studied pilot performance in the cockpit and showed how systematic factors in interpreting instruments and operating controls produced misassessments and actions not as intended (see Fitts and Jones, 1947). The implicit assumption was that the person closest to the failure was the cause. Investigators saw that the aircraft was in principle flyable and that other pilots were able to fly such aircraft successfully. They could show how the necessary data were available for the pilot to correctly identify the actual situation and act in an appropriate way. Since the pilot was the human closest to the accident who could have acted differently, it seemed obvious to conclude that the pilot was the cause of the failure. Fitts and his colleague empirically looked for factors that could have influenced the performance of the pilots. They found that, given the design of the displays and layout of the controls, people relatively often misread instruments or operated the wrong control, especially when task demands were high. The misreadings and misoperations were design-induced in the sense that researchers could link properties of interface design to these erroneous actions and assessments. In other words, the “errors” were not random events, rather they resulted from understandable, regular, and predictable aspects of the design of the tools practitioners used. The researchers found that misreadings and misoperations occurred, but did not always lead to accidents due to two factors. First, pilots often detected these errors before negative consequences occurred. Second, the misreadings 3 and misoperations alone did not lead directly to an accident. Disaster or near misses usually occurred only when these errors occurred in combination with other factors or other circumstances. In the end, the constructive solution was not to conclude that pilots err, but rather to understand principles and techniques for the design of visual displays and control layout. Changing the artifacts used by pilots changed the demands on human perception and cognition and changed the performance of pilots.

https://www.nifc.gov/PUBLICATIONS/acc_invest_march2010/speakers/Perspectives%20on%20Human%20Error.pdf

How To Stop Fighting Fires And Start Solving Chronic Safety Problems

They investigate every single accident, first aid case, or near hit, looking for a root cause. They don’t understand the fallacy of root cause analysis and ultimately place blame for the accident on the employee that was injured for not following procedures. When a system is stable, influenced only by common causes, there is no such thing as THE CAUSE. Their solutions for safety problems are incomplete. Often, this means a temporary quick fix is made to prevent an accident but the real causes of why the problem exists are never addressed. The patch is accepted as being “good enough” or “better than doing nothing at all.” Accidents reoccur and negatively influence other operations. When you allow the cause of a problem to continue, accidents tend to repeat, causing low morale, lack of respect for management, and a general attitude of just giving up when it comes to safety.

http://www.mocalinc.com/uploads/2/7/4/9/2749872/how_to_stop_fighting_fires_and_start_solving_chronic_safety_problems.pdf

There were potentially three people involved, possibly all doing little or nothing wrong. Mayne the car was racing a bike and they saw the police car, surprised they panicked (either car or bike) causing the car to loose control and hit the police car.

Actually there is a paper on it as well. Target Fixation.

Clark et al. studied pilot errors due to "fascination," concentration on some object or task that caused loss of voluntary control over response. They divided fascination into subcategories with the quote above exemplifying Type B-2, where pilots suffering felt drawn to a target and could not avoid the attraction. If the target is a light viewed at night, then the phenomenon is now called the "moth to the flame effect" or more often simply the "moth effect."²The moth effect has also long been discussed by motorcycle riders, who call the phenomenon "target fixation". The NHTSA-funded "Model National Standards For Entry-Level Motorcycle Rider Training" includes target fixation as a rider hazard: "staring at the object you are trying to avoid. Associated with riders striking obstacles they were attempting to avoid." The standard warns riders to avoid such behavior. ³

http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/motheffect.html

The fact that she hit the police car could have been down to the panic when she saw it, after all possibly seeing the police car on the motorway could have caused her to think she was about to get caught speeding? That surprise could have been enough. But here I go, making assumptions with only half facts.

Best to learn that its normal every day people doing normal everyday things along with what ever you class as 'normal' in LOS are the ones who are going to have the accidents.

You want some more reaserch on the subject try http://nosurprise.org.uk/research-papers-and-resources-library/

Cops take virtually zero notice of speeding 99% of the time + even if caught the fine would have been peanuts to her

[CarolJadzia]

Cops take virtually zero notice of speeding 99% of the time + even if caught the fine would have been peanuts to her

Yes I can believe that.

That's why I am not trying to blame anyone. We don't know what happened.

But like with all the other accidents that have happened since, they all appear to be error by road users.

As the majority are. Normally more than one person involved.

All could have easily been avoided.

But they were not.

[Si Thea01]

Very well written Si Thea. But you are back to playing the blame game with only half the facts again.

Why do you have to blame one person?

In 1947 investigations of military aviation accidents concluded that pilot errors were the cause of the crashes. · Fitts and Jones empirically studied pilot performance in the cockpit and showed how systematic factors in interpreting instruments and operating controls produced misassessments and actions not as intended (see Fitts and Jones, 1947). The implicit assumption was that the person closest to the failure was the cause. Investigators saw that the aircraft was in principle flyable and that other pilots were able to fly such aircraft successfully. They could show how the necessary data were available for the pilot to correctly identify the actual situation and act in an appropriate way. Since the pilot was the human closest to the accident who could have acted differently, it seemed obvious to conclude that the pilot was the cause of the failure. Fitts and his colleague empirically looked for factors that could have influenced the performance of the pilots. They found that, given the design of the displays and layout of the controls, people relatively often misread instruments or operated the wrong control, especially when task demands were high. The misreadings and misoperations were design-induced in the sense that researchers could link properties of interface design to these erroneous actions and assessments. In other words, the “errors” were not random events, rather they resulted from understandable, regular, and predictable aspects of the design of the tools practitioners used. The researchers found that misreadings and misoperations occurred, but did not always lead to accidents due to two factors. First, pilots often detected these errors before negative consequences occurred. Second, the misreadings 3 and misoperations alone did not lead directly to an accident. Disaster or near misses usually occurred only when these errors occurred in combination with other factors or other circumstances. In the end, the constructive solution was not to conclude that pilots err, but rather to understand principles and techniques for the design of visual displays and control layout. Changing the artifacts used by pilots changed the demands on human perception and cognition and changed the performance of pilots.

https://www.nifc.gov/PUBLICATIONS/acc_invest_march2010/speakers/Perspectives%20on%20Human%20Error.pdf

How To Stop Fighting Fires And Start Solving Chronic Safety Problems

They investigate every single accident, first aid case, or near hit, looking for a root cause. They don’t understand the fallacy of root cause analysis and ultimately place blame for the accident on the employee that was injured for not following procedures. When a system is stable, influenced only by common causes, there is no such thing as THE CAUSE. Their solutions for safety problems are incomplete. Often, this means a temporary quick fix is made to prevent an accident but the real causes of why the problem exists are never addressed. The patch is accepted as being “good enough” or “better than doing nothing at all.” Accidents reoccur and negatively influence other operations. When you allow the cause of a problem to continue, accidents tend to repeat, causing low morale, lack of respect for management, and a general attitude of just giving up when it comes to safety.

http://www.mocalinc.com/uploads/2/7/4/9/2749872/how_to_stop_fighting_fires_and_start_solving_chronic_safety_problems.pdf

There were potentially three people involved, possibly all doing little or nothing wrong. Mayne the car was racing a bike and they saw the police car, surprised they panicked (either car or bike) causing the car to loose control and hit the police car.

Actually there is a paper on it as well. Target Fixation.

Clark et al. studied pilot errors due to "fascination," concentration on some object or task that caused loss of voluntary control over response. They divided fascination into subcategories with the quote above exemplifying Type B-2, where pilots suffering felt drawn to a target and could not avoid the attraction. If the target is a light viewed at night, then the phenomenon is now called the "moth to the flame effect" or more often simply the "moth effect."²The moth effect has also long been discussed by motorcycle riders, who call the phenomenon "target fixation". The NHTSA-funded "Model National Standards For Entry-Level Motorcycle Rider Training" includes target fixation as a rider hazard: "staring at the object you are trying to avoid. Associated with riders striking obstacles they were attempting to avoid." The standard warns riders to avoid such behavior. ³

http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/motheffect.html

The fact that she hit the police car could have been down to the panic when she saw it, after all possibly seeing the police car on the motorway could have caused her to think she was about to get caught speeding? That surprise could have been enough. But here I go, making assumptions with only half facts.

Best to learn that its normal every day people doing normal everyday things along with what ever you class as 'normal' in LOS are the ones who are going to have the accidents.

You want some more reaserch on the subject try http://nosurprise.org.uk/research-papers-and-resources-library/

Don't be so condescending.. I don't need to be educated about aviation crashes; fighting fires; safety problems and Target fixation, and I certainly do not need to carry out any further research, please give me a break. Hang on, I know, you're suggesting she was doing some low flying and for this reason you have brought the investigations into military aviation accidents into the equation What are you trying to prove with the quotes and links you have listed and also refer to. Totally irrelevant to what we are discussing Blaming one person with only half the facts, again? When and where did the other blame game occur and only with half the facts? Please enlighten me? Now, your question, "Why blame only one person?" Are you referring to paragraphs five (5) and six (6)?

Quote> Now if you did understand, then you would realise that the word, "Accident" implies that there was no one at fault, that the whole incident was a mistake and there was no one to blame. But this is not true, there is someone who has acted illegally and/or negligently and through those actions has caused the collision and death of another person. I believe she is or will be charged with negligent/dangerous driving occasioning death. Is that an accident in your book? Not in mine and by using the word "Crash" it implies "Fault", which clearly there is in this incident.

Quote >Your last sentence is more applicable to yourself. And of course she did not intentionally cause the death of the officer but through either negligent or dangerous driving she certainly did. < End Quote.

When I made these statements I was aware, through various media reports, that she had been or was about to be charged, which she now has been. Two offences actually, Reckless Driving Occasioning Death and Leaving The Scene Of An Accident. Half cocked was I? Only half the facts? I never mentioned having factual knowledge of the incident, you brought this into the debate. Maybe I should tell you to understand policing and crash investigation and then when you have more knowledge than you do now, then be critical, if it is warranted.

By her own admissions which, if correctly recorded, tells us that she lost control when a motorcycle allegedly cut her off. From her own mouth an admission that she was driving with a lack of care or caution, careless or irresponsibly. Negligent in my books. However, if what the witness alleges is proven correct, then she has been reckless by being involved in a race with a motorcycle. Please note, that what she stated becomes a fact but the witness's version is only an allegations until proven correct in a Court. Yes, two people have mentioned a mystery motorcycle, one who has nothing to gain by telling it as it was seen (witness) or the other who has a lot to gain if they can alleviate the cause. (Driver)

Obviously your knowledge of the driving rules leaves a bit to be desired as well as it seems you have forgotten that when one drives a motor vehicle they must do so in such a manner as not to endanger the lives of others. If, by their own admissions, they are driving a vehicle, and for whatever reason cannot control it, crash and cause serious injury or death then they are at the very least being negligent but with the charge of reckless driving occasioning death now in place I would say there is more that the police are aware of and have not disclosed. It is evident that she would not have intentionally crashed and killed the officer but there are factors now in play that clearly point to her being the party at fault, although there maybe be other contributing factors that no one on TVF is aware of at this time.

Let's look at the incident. A high speed crash at 3.00am, speed of 100 kph alleged by the driver. This can cause one to defecate when a greater force is in play, with a known fact that women are more susceptible than men. She soiled her pants didn't she, which tends to indicate that the impact was at a great force. Next she allegedly loses control avoiding a motorcycle and impacts with a stationary vehicle. According to reports this is what she claimed, however a witness contradicts her and indicated that it appeared they were racing. Not being there nor knowing where the police vehicle was parked, nor can anyone indicate if the lights were on or off, one cannot make an informed comment but would he have parked within the main through lanes. Unlikely I would say.

After the crash she checks the car, sees the body, so who does she telephone, not police or emergency services but relatives who attend the scene and take her away to treat an injury to an arm. Emergency services could accommodate that. And yes, people react differently and she did return to the scene and did not, like others, do a runner but her actions do leave something to be desired. When she returns she appears to show compassion but who knows if she was pretending of actually genuine, only she does. I cannot explain the actions of investigating police, as there was certainly sufficient evidence available that would warrant her being taken into custody for mandatory testing at a nearby hospital. Not suggesting she was under the influence of anything, just that it is a pre-requisite for this to occur in any collision. Allowing her to leave was totally negligent of the police and almost bordering on the criminal. If my memory serves me right, I read somewhere that the officer in charge will be questioned over this aspect.

Now given this is Thailand, she may not do any gaol time and may only receive a piddling fine but who knows, we will have to wait and see what the outcome will be or even if it's reported. Whatever happens, let's hope she learns a lesson but then maybe not.

In regards to the Police Officer may he Rest In Peace and hopefully, over time, his family will be able to come to grips with their loss.

[CarolJadzia]

Don't be so condescending.. I don't need to be educated about aviation crashes; fighting fires; safety problems and Target fixation, and I certainly do not need to carry out any further research, please give me a break. Hang on, I know, you're suggesting she was doing some low flying and for this reason you have brought the investigations into military aviation accidents into the equation What are you trying to prove with the quotes and links you have listed and also refer to. Totally irrelevant to what we are discussing Blaming one person with only half the facts, again? When and where did the other blame game occur and only with half the facts? Please enlighten me? Now, your question, "Why blame only one person?" Are you referring to paragraphs five (5) and six (6)?

Quote> Now if you did understand, then you would realise that the word, "Accident" implies that there was no one at fault, that the whole incident was a mistake and there was no one to blame. But this is not true, there is someone who has acted illegally and/or negligently and through those actions has caused the collision and death of another person. I believe she is or will be charged with negligent/dangerous driving occasioning death. Is that an accident in your book? Not in mine and by using the word "Crash" it implies "Fault", which clearly there is in this incident.

Quote >Your last sentence is more applicable to yourself. And of course she did not intentionally cause the death of the officer but through either negligent or dangerous driving she certainly did. < End Quote.

When I made these statements I was aware, through various media reports, that she had been or was about to be charged, which she now has been. Two offences actually, Reckless Driving Occasioning Death and Leaving The Scene Of An Accident. Half cocked was I? Only half the facts? I never mentioned having factual knowledge of the incident, you brought this into the debate. Maybe I should tell you to understand policing and crash investigation and then when you have more knowledge than you do now, then be critical, if it is warranted.

By her own admissions which, if correctly recorded, tells us that she lost control when a motorcycle allegedly cut her off. From her own mouth an admission that she was driving with a lack of care or caution, careless or irresponsibly. Negligent in my books. However, if what the witness alleges is proven correct, then she has been reckless by being involved in a race with a motorcycle. Please note, that what she stated becomes a fact but the witness's version is only an allegations until proven correct in a Court. Yes, two people have mentioned a mystery motorcycle, one who has nothing to gain by telling it as it was seen (witness) or the other who has a lot to gain if they can alleviate the cause. (Driver)

Obviously your knowledge of the driving rules leaves a bit to be desired as well as it seems you have forgotten that when one drives a motor vehicle they must do so in such a manner as not to endanger the lives of others. If, by their own admissions, they are driving a vehicle, and for whatever reason cannot control it, crash and cause serious injury or death then they are at the very least being negligent but with the charge of reckless driving occasioning death now in place I would say there is more that the police are aware of and have not disclosed. It is evident that she would not have intentionally crashed and killed the officer but there are factors now in play that clearly point to her being the party at fault, although there maybe be other contributing factors that no one on TVF is aware of at this time.

Let's look at the incident. A high speed crash at 3.00am, speed of 100 kph alleged by the driver. This can cause one to defecate when a greater force is in play, with a known fact that women are more susceptible than men. She soiled her pants didn't she, which tends to indicate that the impact was at a great force. Next she allegedly loses control avoiding a motorcycle and impacts with a stationary vehicle. According to reports this is what she claimed, however a witness contradicts her and indicated that it appeared they were racing. Not being there nor knowing where the police vehicle was parked, nor can anyone indicate if the lights were on or off, one cannot make an informed comment but would he have parked within the main through lanes. Unlikely I would say.

After the crash she checks the car, sees the body, so who does she telephone, not police or emergency services but relatives who attend the scene and take her away to treat an injury to an arm. Emergency services could accommodate that. And yes, people react differently and she did return to the scene and did not, like others, do a runner but her actions do leave something to be desired. When she returns she appears to show compassion but who knows if she was pretending of actually genuine, only she does. I cannot explain the actions of investigating police, as there was certainly sufficient evidence available that would warrant her being taken into custody for mandatory testing at a nearby hospital. Not suggesting she was under the influence of anything, just that it is a pre-requisite for this to occur in any collision. Allowing her to leave was totally negligent of the police and almost bordering on the criminal. If my memory serves me right, I read somewhere that the officer in charge will be questioned over this aspect.

Now given this is Thailand, she may not do any gaol time and may only receive a piddling fine but who knows, we will have to wait and see what the outcome will be or even if it's reported. Whatever happens, let's hope she learns a lesson but then maybe not.

In regards to the Police Officer may he Rest In Peace and hopefully, over time, his family will be able to come to grips with their loss.

Great, well done. You totally miss the point and nothing changes.

Carry on pointing fingers at people so you can stand in your ivory tower and tell everyone how you are a better driver and would never have an accident like this because it was obviously the fault of someone braking the law.

By your statement it is not just her who needs the lesson. Not with 26000 deaths a year. That's an awful lot of lessons for all those criminals who obviously are all to blame for the accidents they had.

That lesson is proving not to work.

The above does not come from me. It is not even aimed at Thailand. Only when my Ko Samui Police Officer Biker friend asked me for help over a year ago I started looking to see if there was anything new regarding the training manual I have worked from and recommended for the last 30 years - The British Police Riders handbook - Motorcycle Roadcraft.

Now when I went onto the 'road safety professionals' forums the new ideas of 'No Surprise - no accident' were being discussed. So I started studying in. Applying it to the way I drive and Ride and looking at accidents I have been involved with to see if I could have avoided them with the new approach.

Yes I could. The last two commercial vehicle accidents I had, although neither was my technically my fault, if I had been applying the new thinking rather than old then I would have avoided them both. Not so much on the bike as I always have to ride defensively in order to stay alive regardless of country. But it has changed the way I drive.

As a Senior Advanced Instructor Trainer I had to know British traffic law. Sometimes better than Police officers and Test Examiners. I could and have been arrogant about it.

" I am right, this is the law, you are wrong. You should be in this lane, I am going to force my way through just to prove I am right. "

Hey ho, well done me!

Did it help? I have seen that belligerent attitude by many in the UK and Thailand lead to accidents and fights.

If instead you foresee these things and take a lesson from the Thai's - Sabai Sabia

Stand back. We are all just as likely to have accidents. Even if we are the best riders and drivers in the world there is always a high probability of someone having an accident with us.

NOBODY (except maybe for jihadists and people trying to commit suicide) leaves home with the intention of having an accident or dying on the roads.

If you wish to blame everyone else then nothing will change.

Take responsabillity rather than blaming others.

No Surprise - No Accident

[Ace of Pop]

Lord it's Hard to be Humble ,when your perfect in every way...

[Si Thea01]

Don't be so condescending.. I don't need to be educated about aviation crashes; fighting fires; safety problems and Target fixation, and I certainly do not need to carry out any further research, please give me a break. Hang on, I know, you're suggesting she was doing some low flying and for this reason you have brought the investigations into military aviation accidents into the equation What are you trying to prove with the quotes and links you have listed and also refer to. Totally irrelevant to what we are discussing Blaming one person with only half the facts, again? When and where did the other blame game occur and only with half the facts? Please enlighten me? Now, your question, "Why blame only one person?" Are you referring to paragraphs five (5) and six (6)?

Quote> Now if you did understand, then you would realise that the word, "Accident" implies that there was no one at fault, that the whole incident was a mistake and there was no one to blame. But this is not true, there is someone who has acted illegally and/or negligently and through those actions has caused the collision and death of another person. I believe she is or will be charged with negligent/dangerous driving occasioning death. Is that an accident in your book? Not in mine and by using the word "Crash" it implies "Fault", which clearly there is in this incident.

Quote >Your last sentence is more applicable to yourself. And of course she did not intentionally cause the death of the officer but through either negligent or dangerous driving she certainly did. < End Quote.

When I made these statements I was aware, through various media reports, that she had been or was about to be charged, which she now has been. Two offences actually, Reckless Driving Occasioning Death and Leaving The Scene Of An Accident. Half cocked was I? Only half the facts? I never mentioned having factual knowledge of the incident, you brought this into the debate. Maybe I should tell you to understand policing and crash investigation and then when you have more knowledge than you do now, then be critical, if it is warranted.

By her own admissions which, if correctly recorded, tells us that she lost control when a motorcycle allegedly cut her off. From her own mouth an admission that she was driving with a lack of care or caution, careless or irresponsibly. Negligent in my books. However, if what the witness alleges is proven correct, then she has been reckless by being involved in a race with a motorcycle. Please note, that what she stated becomes a fact but the witness's version is only an allegations until proven correct in a Court. Yes, two people have mentioned a mystery motorcycle, one who has nothing to gain by telling it as it was seen (witness) or the other who has a lot to gain if they can alleviate the cause. (Driver)

Obviously your knowledge of the driving rules leaves a bit to be desired as well as it seems you have forgotten that when one drives a motor vehicle they must do so in such a manner as not to endanger the lives of others. If, by their own admissions, they are driving a vehicle, and for whatever reason cannot control it, crash and cause serious injury or death then they are at the very least being negligent but with the charge of reckless driving occasioning death now in place I would say there is more that the police are aware of and have not disclosed. It is evident that she would not have intentionally crashed and killed the officer but there are factors now in play that clearly point to her being the party at fault, although there maybe be other contributing factors that no one on TVF is aware of at this time.

Let's look at the incident. A high speed crash at 3.00am, speed of 100 kph alleged by the driver. This can cause one to defecate when a greater force is in play, with a known fact that women are more susceptible than men. She soiled her pants didn't she, which tends to indicate that the impact was at a great force. Next she allegedly loses control avoiding a motorcycle and impacts with a stationary vehicle. According to reports this is what she claimed, however a witness contradicts her and indicated that it appeared they were racing. Not being there nor knowing where the police vehicle was parked, nor can anyone indicate if the lights were on or off, one cannot make an informed comment but would he have parked within the main through lanes. Unlikely I would say.

After the crash she checks the car, sees the body, so who does she telephone, not police or emergency services but relatives who attend the scene and take her away to treat an injury to an arm. Emergency services could accommodate that. And yes, people react differently and she did return to the scene and did not, like others, do a runner but her actions do leave something to be desired. When she returns she appears to show compassion but who knows if she was pretending of actually genuine, only she does. I cannot explain the actions of investigating police, as there was certainly sufficient evidence available that would warrant her being taken into custody for mandatory testing at a nearby hospital. Not suggesting she was under the influence of anything, just that it is a pre-requisite for this to occur in any collision. Allowing her to leave was totally negligent of the police and almost bordering on the criminal. If my memory serves me right, I read somewhere that the officer in charge will be questioned over this aspect.

Now given this is Thailand, she may not do any gaol time and may only receive a piddling fine but who knows, we will have to wait and see what the outcome will be or even if it's reported. Whatever happens, let's hope she learns a lesson but then maybe not.

In regards to the Police Officer may he Rest In Peace and hopefully, over time, his family will be able to come to grips with their loss.

Great, well done. You totally miss the point and nothing changes.

Carry on pointing fingers at people so you can stand in your ivory tower and tell everyone how you are a better driver and would never have an accident like this because it was obviously the fault of someone braking the law.

By your statement it is not just her who needs the lesson. Not with 26000 deaths a year. That's an awful lot of lessons for all those criminals who obviously are all to blame for the accidents they had.

That lesson is proving not to work.

The above does not come from me. It is not even aimed at Thailand. Only when my Ko Samui Police Officer Biker friend asked me for help over a year ago I started looking to see if there was anything new regarding the training manual I have worked from and recommended for the last 30 years - The British Police Riders handbook - Motorcycle Roadcraft.

Now when I went onto the 'road safety professionals' forums the new ideas of 'No Surprise - no accident' were being discussed. So I started studying in. Applying it to the way I drive and Ride and looking at accidents I have been involved with to see if I could have avoided them with the new approach.

Yes I could. The last two commercial vehicle accidents I had, although neither was my technically my fault, if I had been applying the new thinking rather than old then I would have avoided them both. Not so much on the bike as I always have to ride defensively in order to stay alive regardless of country. But it has changed the way I drive.

As a Senior Advanced Instructor Trainer I had to know British traffic law. Sometimes better than Police officers and Test Examiners. I could and have been arrogant about it.

" I am right, this is the law, you are wrong. You should be in this lane, I am going to force my way through just to prove I am right. "

Hey ho, well done me!

Did it help? I have seen that belligerent attitude by many in the UK and Thailand lead to accidents and fights.

If instead you foresee these things and take a lesson from the Thai's - Sabai Sabia

Stand back. We are all just as likely to have accidents. Even if we are the best riders and drivers in the world there is always a high probability of someone having an accident with us.

NOBODY (except maybe for jihadists and people trying to commit suicide) leaves home with the intention of having an accident or dying on the roads.

If you wish to blame everyone else then nothing will change.

Take responsabillity rather than blaming others.

No Surprise - No Accident

I really must be missing the point because I have no idea in Hades what you are on about. Ivory Tower, better driver, never had an accident, fault of someone else breaking (not braking) the law? This post started off relating to Anna Reese being involved in a fatal crash. When I commented I based what I wrote on my experience, before retiring, as a NSW Police Crash Investigator and then later, my years being a private investigator, investigating many thousands of motor vehicle crashes involving serious injury and death. All up 30 years experience.

Your claim to fame, I see, is a motorcycle riding instructor, yet you want to offer your two bob's worth on crashes and accidents. I have forgotten more in this regard then you would have any knowledge of, so please, unless you have something that you believe I could learn, and don't get me wrong, one learns something new everyday but from yourself what I am learning is that you know nothing that even remotely relates to what is being discussed. Just a lot of huffing and puffing.

Insofar as your first response, rubbish, the next thing you'll be on about is train or boat crashes, you have already covered aviation, fire, target fixation, totally irrelevant topics with no relevance to the original post. Then you put up you motorcycle ride from Phuket to Khao Sok National Park and ask readers to comment on your riding. Well, you are like a little boy who wants to take his bat and ball and go home when someone does, and it isn't complementary. May I ask what in the hell has this got to do with the original post, nothing, does it? it is just you being hairy chested and when critiqued, cannot accept it and go along in you arrogant manner and decry what the poster had to say.

My two bit's worth on you road trip. As a rider, and if you are an Advanced instructor and Trainer, then many things you undertook during the trip would see you fail any advanced driving/riders' course carried out in my home country, Australia. I read what Sviss Geez had to say and your reply to him. On the footpath for a short time, not a big problem but is still the law here not to ride on the footpath. You were undertaking illegally and overtaking, on a few occasions, across the unbroken yellow centre line, and on one occasion, you went to the incorrect side of the carriageway to pass an elephant. Now, don't ask me where, like you did Sviss Geez, it's your video so look at it, I took 24 minutes out of my life to view it. Can I also ask you the same question, Are you too familiar with Thai road rules, or are you just another farang who believes they are not applicable to him.

May I also ask but like my previous post where I asked questions, you failed to answer, so if I get an answer this time I'll be surprised. Please tell me what are you on about here (your last response) and what is its relevance to the original post? Then this.

NOBODY (except maybe for jihadists and people trying to commit suicide) leaves home with the intention of having an accident or dying on the roads.

If you want to have a qualified and legitimate debate then I have no problem but please stay on course, don't go on with rubbish and do not go off on totally irrelevant tangents that you are now doing. And have a nice day.