Use Of Foreign License - The Law

[Smokin Joe]

Folks are still arguing about using a foreign drivers license in Thailand and making claims that "The law says..." or "The treaty says..." you seldom see an actual quote from the reference.

Here is everything the Thai law and the 1949 Geneva Treaty says. The 1949 Geneva treaty is the one that applies to the majority of English speakers but there are other treaties that apply to different countries such as the ASEAN Treaty.

THESE ARE THE ONLY REFERENCES THAT APPLY. Any information from somewhere other than Thai Law, or from a treaty Thailand signed, may be correct but could also just be totally fabricated.

Motor Vehicle Act B.E. 2522 (1979) (in Thai)

It is #16 in the list of references

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_registration_plates_of_Thailand#References

web.krisdika.go.th/data/law/law2/%c301/%c301-20-9999-update.pdf

Motor Vehicle Act B.E. 2522 (1979) (in English)

http://driving-in-thailand.com/category/laws/traffic-laws/

Title 3: Drivers License

Section 42
Anyone who wishes to drive a motor vehicle on public roads must possess an appropriate driver’s license. The driver must carry the driver’s license and a photocopy of the registration book and show them to competent officers upon request. This does not apply for those who are learning to drive a motor vehicle according to the provision of Section 57.

If the driver is an alien who doesn’t have an immigrant visa, he may drive a motor vehicle with a driver’s license specified in the Section 42-2. In such a case, he must carry documents specified by the treaty between the Thai government and the government which issued such driver’s license, and show them to competent officers upon request.

Section 42-2
In case there’s a treaty between the Thai government and a foreign government regarding mutual acceptance of driver’s license, an alien who doesn’t have an immigrant visa may drive a motor vehicle with a driver’s license issued by such a foreign government, or an automobile association authorized by such a foreign government.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Convention on Road Traffic, Geneva, 19 September 1949

treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/1952/03/19520326%2003-36%20PM/Ch_XI_B_1_2_3.pdf

Chapter I

GENERAL PROVISIONS

ARTICLE 1

1. While reserving its jurisdiction over the use of its own roads, each Contracting State agrees to the use of its roads for international traffic under the conditions set out in this Convention.

2. No Contracting State shall be required to extend the benefit of the provisions of this Convention to any motor vehicle or trailer, or to any driver having remained within its territory for a continuous period exceeding one year.

CHAPTER V

DRIVERS OF MOTOR VEHICLES IN INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC

Article 24

1. Each Contracting State shall allow any driver admitted to its territory who fulfils the conditions which are set out in Annex 8 and who holds a valid driving permit issued to him, after he has given proof of his competence, by the competent authority of another Contracting State or subdivision thereof, or by an Association duly empowered by such authority, to drive on its roads without further examination motor vehicles of the category or categories defined in Annexes 9 and 10 for which the permit has been issued.

2. A Contracting State may however require that any driver admitted to its territory shall carry an international driving permit conforming to the model contained in Annex 10, especially in the case of a driver coming from a country where a domestic driving permit is not required or where the domestic permit issued to him does not conform to the model contained in Annex 9.

3. The international driving permit shall, after the driver has given proof of his competence, be delivered by the competent authority of a Contracting State or subdivision thereof, or by a duly authorised Association, and sealed or stamped by such authority or Association. The holder shall be entitled to drive in all Contracting States without further examination motor vehicles coming within the categories for which the permit has been issued.

Note: Annex 8 just specifies age limit of 18. Annex 9 is an example of a National Drivers Permit (License) that would be acceptable without the IDP. Annex 10 is the International Drivers Permit (IDP).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Misc related Info from the Thai Presentation at the UN ESCAP meeting in Phuket 10-11 Feb 2014

www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/2.10.Thailand.pdf

* The amendment of the Land Transport Act, B.E. 2522 (1979) and the Motor Vehicle Act, B.E. 2522 (1979) is in progress. Simultaneously, the two Acts are being amended with an intension to incorporate the two Acts into one new Act, which will govern both the motor vehicle and land transport issues.

* * The Motor Vehicle Act B.E.2522 (1979) is also being amended to support the ratification of the Vienna Convention on Road Traffic, 1968.

[JaseTheBass]

So, an EU photo license doesn't require an IDP from the looks of it.

"The driver must carry the driver’s license and a photocopy of the registration book and show them to competent officers upon request."

Just need to find a 'competent officer' - not seen one in 15 years of living here.

[Smokin Joe]

So, an EU photo license doesn't require an IDP from the looks of it.

"The driver must carry the driver’s license and a photocopy of the registration book and show them to competent officers upon request."

Just need to find a 'competent officer' - not seen one in 15 years of living here.

Not sure how you came up with that interpretation.

What it says is that you can use a foreign license if the license is issued by a country that has a mutual treaty with Thailand and that you must carry the documents specified by the treaty.

[technologybytes]

In other words a foreign licence accompanied by an IDP is acceptable.. this has always been my experience.

Did anyone notice the paragraph that refers to not having an immigrant visa... I have ONLY ever seen NON-immigrant visas.

[bojo]

Coming from the UK, the AA website states you need an IDP for Thailand.....it also states that the IDP is to be used in conjunction with your driving licence

the URL below shows other countries' requirements also

http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/overseas/idp-requirements-by-country.html

[recom273]

Amazing work !

Was there a list of countries with a mutual treaties ( not that it makes much difference to me, as I hold a 5 year but .. )

I would just like to say .. In the eyes of the law this all maybe true - but be warned, a member of the expat bikers group wrote off his Ducati ( I forget the details ).

Although the police were happy with his IDP, the insurance company not so - refusing to pay out as he had been riding on his IDP for longer than 3 months, when within that time, should have exchanged it for a Thai license or taken the Thai test.

If you are here concerning yourself with mutual treaties to confuse the police - just exchange your license or take the test, maybe cheaper in the late no run.

Edited April 5, 2016 by recom273

[canthai55]

I adhere to CYA - Home country license, IDP, Thai. Cover all the bases, not expensive, not hard. Debate, Argue, Plead all you want. CYA.

[stevenl]

Coming from the UK, the AA website states you need an IDP for Thailand.....it also states that the IDP is to be used in conjunction with your driving licence

the URL below shows other countries' requirements also

http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/overseas/idp-requirements-by-country.html

Yes, many 'AA's' say the same. They're wrong though.

[cornishcarlos]

So the argument goes on but nice try OP

At the end of the day, unless you have a Thai licence, you are at the mercy of the police that stop you. They don't need treaties or even Thai law, they are the law... Plus an insurance company will wriggle out of anything if they choose to.

Get a Thai licence !!!

[bazza40]

1/ A Thai cop at a roadside stop has heard of the Geneva convention . 2/ Same cop has even read Thai regulations governing foreign licences and IDP's

About the same probabilities operating as me winning Tattslotto.

OP, it really is easier to just get a Thai driving licence.

[Smokin Joe]

So the argument goes on but nice try OP

At the end of the day, unless you have a Thai licence, you are at the mercy of the police that stop you. They don't need treaties or even Thai law, they are the law... Plus an insurance company will wriggle out of anything if they choose to.

Get a Thai licence !!!

I agree that you should get a Thai license. that is not what the post is about.

Many posters make false claims about what the law or the treaty says. For instance there is nothing in the law that limits the time you can use a foreign license.

Insurance is another matter. I would check my insurance carefully, but again it's better to get a Thai license anyway.

[Smokin Joe]

Coming from the UK, the AA website states you need an IDP for Thailand.....it also states that the IDP is to be used in conjunction with your driving licence

the URL below shows other countries' requirements also

http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/overseas/idp-requirements-by-country.html

Yes, many 'AA's' say the same. They're wrong though.

And as with your other claims I assume your reference for that is "Because I said so".

And articles in sites like TripAdvisor do not take precedence over Thai law or international treaties.

[Pigdog747]

So the argument goes on but nice try OP

At the end of the day, unless you have a Thai licence, you are at the mercy of the police that stop you. They don't need treaties or even Thai law, they are the law... Plus an insurance company will wriggle out of anything if they choose to.

Get a Thai licence !!!

I agree that you should get a Thai license. that is not what the post is about.

Many posters make false claims about what the law or the treaty says. For instance there is nothing in the law that limits the time you can use a foreign license.

Insurance is another matter. I would check my insurance carefully, but again it's better to get a Thai license anyway.

Were you able to keep your home country license, I spend 5 1/2 months a year here and dread the idea of switching back and forth twice a year

[cornishcarlos]

Yup, I kept my U.K licence...

[sometimewoodworker]

So the argument goes on but nice try OP

At the end of the day, unless you have a Thai licence, you are at the mercy of the police that stop you. They don't need treaties or even Thai law, they are the law... Plus an insurance company will wriggle out of anything if they choose to.

Get a Thai licence !!!

I agree that you should get a Thai license. that is not what the post is about.

Many posters make false claims about what the law or the treaty says. For instance there is nothing in the law that limits the time you can use a foreign license.

Insurance is another matter. I would check my insurance carefully, but again it's better to get a Thai license anyway.

Were you able to keep your home country license, I spend 5 1/2 months a year here and dread the idea of switching back and forth twice a year

I have got a national licence in 2 foreign countries and on both occasions kept my licence, this was automatically returned with a copy kept by the foreign licensing authority. FWIW Once it was my UK (green paper) licence then my Japanese photo card licence with IDP.

I don't know if any country will ask you to surrender your national licence, and if they do on what grounds, as you are still licensed to drive in your home country.

I suspect that UK law requires you to use your UK licence if you are still entitled to it. Although one person has made a claim, that he can't provide any proof of, that you loose your UK licence after a period of absence from the UK

[timendres]

Coming from the UK, the AA website states you need an IDP for Thailand.....it also states that the IDP is to be used in conjunction with your driving licence

the URL below shows other countries' requirements also

http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/overseas/idp-requirements-by-country.html

Yes, many 'AA's' say the same. They're wrong though.

Big surprise! The company that makes money obtaining an IDP for you tells you that you need one...

I make very cute Hello Kitty versions of an IDP with special lamination.

It just so happens that Thailand requires that you carry this if you drive any vehicle.

You can obtain one for the low price of $1,000USD at my website, which also happens to have a page that tells you that you need one.

[steve187]

So the argument goes on but nice try OP

At the end of the day, unless you have a Thai licence, you are at the mercy of the police that stop you. They don't need treaties or even Thai law, they are the law... Plus an insurance company will wriggle out of anything if they choose to.

Get a Thai licence !!!

I agree that you should get a Thai license. that is not what the post is about.

Many posters make false claims about what the law or the treaty says. For instance there is nothing in the law that limits the time you can use a foreign license.

Insurance is another matter. I would check my insurance carefully, but again it's better to get a Thai license anyway.

2. No Contracting State shall be required to extend the benefit of the provisions of this Convention to any motor vehicle or trailer, or to any driver having remained within its territory for a continuous period exceeding one year.

[manfredtillmann]

thank you for compiling this info, Smokin Joe, good news for someone like me who can not get a thai licence due to their colourblind test. still seems strange to me that thailand requires this. does not seem to help one bit in keeping the accident rate down.

i am holding truck and motorbike licences in germany and australia and the only time i was checked for correct colour vision was when i sat for a public transport licence.

[Smokin Joe]

So the argument goes on but nice try OP

At the end of the day, unless you have a Thai licence, you are at the mercy of the police that stop you. They don't need treaties or even Thai law, they are the law... Plus an insurance company will wriggle out of anything if they choose to.

Get a Thai licence !!!

I agree that you should get a Thai license. that is not what the post is about.

Many posters make false claims about what the law or the treaty says. For instance there is nothing in the law that limits the time you can use a foreign license.

Insurance is another matter. I would check my insurance carefully, but again it's better to get a Thai license anyway.

2. No Contracting State shall be required to extend the benefit of the provisions of this Convention to any motor vehicle or trailer, or to any driver having remained within its territory for a continuous period exceeding one year.

That is from the Treaty, not the Thai law, and is the only reference to a time limit. It implies that a foreign license should be good for a stay of one year.

Honoring a foreign license after one year continuous stay is at the discretion of each country and the Thai Motor Vehicle Act doesn't have time limit mentioned.

[roath]

I think that the point is that if you are a tourist here, driving on an IDP would be fine, but if you are resident here, then you should be driving with a Thai DL. Folks, remember, no tourist can remain in Thailand more than 3 months (2 months on TV with 30 days extension). So in simple terms, if you are here on a tourist visa, you should be OK. Any other form of visa (or e.g. driving your own vehicle, which would suggest that you are resident rather than a tourist, regardless of visa status) then you should be on a Thai DL

Edited April 6, 2016 by roath

[manfredtillmann]

I think that the point is that if you are a tourist here, driving on an IDP would be fine, but if you are resident here, then you should be driving with a Thai DL. Folks, remember, no tourist can remain in Thailand more than 3 months (2 months on TV with 30 days extension). So in simple terms, if you are here on a tourist visa, you should be OK. Any other form of visa (or e.g. driving your own vehicle, which would suggest that you are resident rather than a tourist, regardless of visa status) then you should be on a Thai DL

i am on a tourist visa, do own my own vehicle but - according to our local office - for my visa status alone i am not eligible to get a thai licence. suits me.

[roath]

I think that the point is that if you are a tourist here, driving on an IDP would be fine, but if you are resident here, then you should be driving with a Thai DL. Folks, remember, no tourist can remain in Thailand more than 3 months (2 months on TV with 30 days extension). So in simple terms, if you are here on a tourist visa, you should be OK. Any other form of visa (or e.g. driving your own vehicle, which would suggest that you are resident rather than a tourist, regardless of visa status) then you should be on a Thai DL

i am on a tourist visa, do own my own vehicle but - according to our local office - for my visa status alone i am not eligible to get a thai licence. suits me.

That advice is wrong sorry. Demonstrably so (and indeed from my own personal experience, where I obtained 3 Thai DLs whilst on tourist visas over the years from BKK, Chiang Mai, and Chonburi, so a fairly broad experience of offices)

Firstly, you ARE entitled to obtain a Thai DL on a tourist visa. Do a quick search on TV for hundreds of posts on this subject.

Secondly, as mentioned by someone else above, if you are driving here with your own vehicle without a Thai DL, you are risking the Thai insurance company invalidating your insurance in the event of any claim for not driving with an appropriate licence (ownership of your own vehicle suggesting that you are not a "tourist" but a "resident").

Many people post that they get away with x, y or z when stopped by the police. As we all know, what you can and cannot get away with at a police stop is rarely an accurate reflection of the actual law.

[manfredtillmann]

I think that the point is that if you are a tourist here, driving on an IDP would be fine, but if you are resident here, then you should be driving with a Thai DL. Folks, remember, no tourist can remain in Thailand more than 3 months (2 months on TV with 30 days extension). So in simple terms, if you are here on a tourist visa, you should be OK. Any other form of visa (or e.g. driving your own vehicle, which would suggest that you are resident rather than a tourist, regardless of visa status) then you should be on a Thai DL

i am on a tourist visa, do own my own vehicle but - according to our local office - for my visa status alone i am not eligible to get a thai licence. suits me.

That advice is wrong sorry. Demonstrably so (and indeed from my own personal experience, where I obtained 3 Thai DLs whilst on tourist visas over the years from BKK, Chiang Mai, and Chonburi, so a fairly broad experience of offices)

Firstly, you ARE entitled to obtain a Thai DL on a tourist visa. Do a quick search on TV for hundreds of posts on this subject.

Secondly, as mentioned by someone else above, if you are driving here with your own vehicle without a Thai DL, you are risking the Thai insurance company invalidating your insurance in the event of any claim for not driving with an appropriate licence (ownership of your own vehicle suggesting that you are not a "tourist" but a "resident").

Many people post that they get away with x, y or z when stopped by the police. As we all know, what you can and cannot get away with at a police stop is rarely an accurate reflection of the actual law.

thank you for your input.

it does not really surprise me that the advice i received was wrong - this appears to be a feature of living in thailand where no one knows what he / she is talking about.

i am merely reporting what my local motor office told my gf when we went there to check out what the colour test looks like (see my earlier post).

as for the insurance business: the reason why i bought a new car from a licensed nissan dealer in my own name with insurance included in the deal was to ensure that no one can claim later that they were not aware that they were dealing with a farang with an oz drivers license.

i am not familiar with thai law but in all countries i have lived in so far, if you enter into a contract and disclose everything that could detrimentally effect its validity than no claims can be made after on the basis that items you have disclosed do not comply.

i am certain this will stand up in court.

and regarding: 'ownership of your own vehicle suggesting that you are not a "tourist" but a "resident"... why is that? i own motor vehicles in several countries but i am only a resident in one. these days people move all over the planet, owning a motor vehicle is no different from owning a mobile phone to me.

[roath]

I think that the point is that if you are a tourist here, driving on an IDP would be fine, but if you are resident here, then you should be driving with a Thai DL. Folks, remember, no tourist can remain in Thailand more than 3 months (2 months on TV with 30 days extension). So in simple terms, if you are here on a tourist visa, you should be OK. Any other form of visa (or e.g. driving your own vehicle, which would suggest that you are resident rather than a tourist, regardless of visa status) then you should be on a Thai DL

i am on a tourist visa, do own my own vehicle but - according to our local office - for my visa status alone i am not eligible to get a thai licence. suits me.

That advice is wrong sorry. Demonstrably so (and indeed from my own personal experience, where I obtained 3 Thai DLs whilst on tourist visas over the years from BKK, Chiang Mai, and Chonburi, so a fairly broad experience of offices)

Firstly, you ARE entitled to obtain a Thai DL on a tourist visa. Do a quick search on TV for hundreds of posts on this subject.

Secondly, as mentioned by someone else above, if you are driving here with your own vehicle without a Thai DL, you are risking the Thai insurance company invalidating your insurance in the event of any claim for not driving with an appropriate licence (ownership of your own vehicle suggesting that you are not a "tourist" but a "resident").

Many people post that they get away with x, y or z when stopped by the police. As we all know, what you can and cannot get away with at a police stop is rarely an accurate reflection of the actual law.

thank you for your input.

it does not really surprise me that the advice i received was wrong - this appears to be a feature of living in thailand where no one knows what he / she is talking about.

i am merely reporting what my local motor office told my gf when we went there to check out what the colour test looks like (see my earlier post).

as for the insurance business: the reason why i bought a new car from a licensed nissan dealer in my own name with insurance included in the deal was to ensure that no one can claim later that they were not aware that they were dealing with a farang with an oz drivers license.

i am not familiar with thai law but in all countries i have lived in so far, if you enter into a contract and disclose everything that could detrimentally effect its validity than no claims can be made after on the basis that items you have disclosed do not comply.

i am certain this will stand up in court.

and regarding: 'ownership of your own vehicle suggesting that you are not a "tourist" but a "resident"... why is that? i own motor vehicles in several countries but i am only a resident in one. these days people move all over the planet, owning a motor vehicle is no different from owning a mobile phone to me.

Regarding your assertion regarding disclosure, I don't agree that you are off the hook. The fact that you may have disclosed an Australian DL at the time that you took out the insurance would not obviate the requirement to comply with Thailand law regarding the necessity to have a local DL at a later date. Much would depend on your individual circumstances.

Owning your own vehicle isn't prima facie proof that you are not a tourist, but likewise, let's be honest, how many "tourists" purchase vehicles whilst on "holiday". Don't confuse legal residency with de facto residency. To purchase a vehicle in Thailand, you need a "certificate of residency", which is prima facie proof of residency at the time that you purchased the vehicle.

I am not trying to argue with you, or say that you are 100 per cent wrong, but simply that the situation is nowhere near as clear cut as you seem to suggest. If it came to an accident, you can argue until you are blue in the face about whether you are a tourist or should be on a Thai or foreign DL or not, but I assure you that ownership of your own vehicle would be a factor against you on that front as far as the insurance company are concerned and they may (i.e. nothing is certain) seek to void the policy for non-compliance (not having a valid DL). If you came and went frequently, and you stayed in different places each time, that that would indicate that you were a tourist and that accordingly, you were not required to have a local DL as you weren't in the country for a distinct period of time (according to reports, for more than 3 months).

[ThaiKneeTim]

So the argument goes on but nice try OP

At the end of the day, unless you have a Thai licence, you are at the mercy of the police that stop you. They don't need treaties or even Thai law, they are the law... Plus an insurance company will wriggle out of anything if they choose to.

Get a Thai licence !!!

I agree that you should get a Thai license. that is not what the post is about.

Many posters make false claims about what the law or the treaty says. For instance there is nothing in the law that limits the time you can use a foreign license.

Insurance is another matter. I would check my insurance carefully, but again it's better to get a Thai license anyway.

Were you able to keep your home country license, I spend 5 1/2 months a year here and dread the idea of switching back and forth twice a year

I have got a national licence in 2 foreign countries and on both occasions kept my licence, this was automatically returned with a copy kept by the foreign licensing authority. FWIW Once it was my UK (green paper) licence then my Japanese photo card licence with IDP.

I don't know if any country will ask you to surrender your national licence, and if they do on what grounds, as you are still licensed to drive in your home country.

I suspect that UK law requires you to use your UK licence if you are still entitled to it. Although one person has made a claim, that he can't provide any proof of, that you loose your UK licence after a period of absence from the UK

The UK licence has an expiry date, it remains valid until that date. There is even a time limit on the photo, that has to be renewed periodically too.

Out here in smallsville the local police don't seem to be familiar with the requirements for an DIP; I got caught last year at a check point not wearing a seatbelt, 300 Baht fine for no seatbelt, record my licence details and off I went on my merry way.

[stevenl]

Coming from the UK, the AA website states you need an IDP for Thailand.....it also states that the IDP is to be used in conjunction with your driving licence

the URL below shows other countries' requirements also

http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/overseas/idp-requirements-by-country.html

Yes, many 'AA's' say the same. They're wrong though.

And as with your other claims I assume your reference for that is "Because I said so".

And articles in sites like TripAdvisor do not take precedence over Thai law or international treaties.

No, because I read the law.

[Smokin Joe]

Roath,

I think you should go back to the top of the page and read the law again.

Your words - " ,,,the requirement to comply with Thailand law regarding the necessity to have a local DL at a later date."

There is no requirement, read the law.

Your words - "To purchase a vehicle in Thailand, you need a "certificate of residency", which is prima facie proof of residency at the time that you purchased the vehicle.

Hogwash, it means no such thing. Someone on a 30-day visa exempt entry staying at a hotel can get a certificate of residence.

Also, insurance companies do not make the law, and do not decide whether a license is valid or not for legally driving. A license is either valid or not in accordance with the law.

And buying a car, bike, or condo does not determine whether you are a resident or not. I Own a condo and a motorbike and have lived here for 10 years and although I consider myself to be a resident the Thai government does not. I am a foreigner on a "Temporary Stay". It says that right at the top of the form I fill out each year for another one year "Extension Of TEMPORARY STAY in The Kingdom. If I flew to Laos and back tomorrow without a re-entry permit I would be considered just like any other arrival and be given a 30 day entry stamp. The immigration officer would not be impressed at all if I told them that owning a condo and motorbike makes me a resident. I would probably just be warned not to overstay or I would be deported.

Edit: But I still agree with you that everyone SHOULD get a Thai license. As I've said before, the point of this thread was to make the correct facts available. They are right there in Post #1.

If a newbie poster on TV asks a simple question about using his foreign drivers license I think, given a choice, they would prefer to be told the truth rather that something that someone just made up

Edited April 6, 2016 by Smokin Joe

[roath]

Roath,

I think you should go back to the top of the page and read the law again.

Your words - " ,,,the requirement to comply with Thailand law regarding the necessity to have a local DL at a later date."

There is no requirement, read the law.

Your words - "To purchase a vehicle in Thailand, you need a "certificate of residency", which is prima facie proof of residency at the time that you purchased the vehicle.

Hogwash, it means no such thing. Someone on a 30-day visa exempt entry staying at a hotel can get a certificate of residence.

Also, insurance companies do not make the law, and do not decide whether a license is valid or not for legally driving. A license is either valid or not in accordance with the law.

And buying a car, bike, or condo does not determine whether you are a resident or not. I Own a condo and a motorbike and have lived here for 10 years and although I consider myself to be a resident the Thai government does not. I am a foreigner on a "Temporary Stay". It says that right at the top of the form I fill out each year for another one year "Extension Of TEMPORARY STAY in The Kingdom. If I flew to Laos and back tomorrow without a re-entry permit I would be considered just like any other arrival and be given a 30 day entry stamp. The immigration officer would not be impressed at all if I told them that owning a condo and motorbike makes me a resident. I would probably just be warned not to overstay or I would be deported.

Edit: But I still agree with you that everyone SHOULD get a Thai license. As I've said before, the point of this thread was to make the correct facts available. They are right there in Post #1.

If a newbie poster on TV asks a simple question about using his foreign drivers license I think, given a choice, they would prefer to be told the truth rather that something that someone just made up

Good luck arguing with an insurance company about Thai law. For the record, English translations of Thai law are irrelevant so posting the same without a disclaimer to that effect is somewhat misleading. Thai law tends not to be as exact as most of us are used to coming from more "advanced" jurisdictions. Multiple posters have recorded difficulties with insurance when driving on a foreign DL when they have been here for longer than 3 months so as you say if not on tourist visa get a Thai DL

A certificate of residency states that you are lawfully resident in the country at the date of the certificate. Don't confuse de facto residency with legal residency or domicile for that matter. Ergo, not "hogwash".

[Tomtomtom69]

i am on a tourist visa, do own my own vehicle but - according to our local office - for my visa status alone i am not eligible to get a thai licence. suits me.

That advice is wrong sorry. Demonstrably so (and indeed from my own personal experience, where I obtained 3 Thai DLs whilst on tourist visas over the years from BKK, Chiang Mai, and Chonburi, so a fairly broad experience of offices)

Firstly, you ARE entitled to obtain a Thai DL on a tourist visa. Do a quick search on TV for hundreds of posts on this subject.

Secondly, as mentioned by someone else above, if you are driving here with your own vehicle without a Thai DL, you are risking the Thai insurance company invalidating your insurance in the event of any claim for not driving with an appropriate licence (ownership of your own vehicle suggesting that you are not a "tourist" but a "resident").

Many people post that they get away with x, y or z when stopped by the police. As we all know, what you can and cannot get away with at a police stop is rarely an accurate reflection of the actual law.

thank you for your input.

it does not really surprise me that the advice i received was wrong - this appears to be a feature of living in thailand where no one knows what he / she is talking about.

i am merely reporting what my local motor office told my gf when we went there to check out what the colour test looks like (see my earlier post).

as for the insurance business: the reason why i bought a new car from a licensed nissan dealer in my own name with insurance included in the deal was to ensure that no one can claim later that they were not aware that they were dealing with a farang with an oz drivers license.

i am not familiar with thai law but in all countries i have lived in so far, if you enter into a contract and disclose everything that could detrimentally effect its validity than no claims can be made after on the basis that items you have disclosed do not comply.

i am certain this will stand up in court.

and regarding: 'ownership of your own vehicle suggesting that you are not a "tourist" but a "resident"... why is that? i own motor vehicles in several countries but i am only a resident in one. these days people move all over the planet, owning a motor vehicle is no different from owning a mobile phone to me.

Regarding your assertion regarding disclosure, I don't agree that you are off the hook. The fact that you may have disclosed an Australian DL at the time that you took out the insurance would not obviate the requirement to comply with Thailand law regarding the necessity to have a local DL at a later date. Much would depend on your individual circumstances.

Owning your own vehicle isn't prima facie proof that you are not a tourist, but likewise, let's be honest, how many "tourists" purchase vehicles whilst on "holiday". Don't confuse legal residency with de facto residency. To purchase a vehicle in Thailand, you need a "certificate of residency", which is prima facie proof of residency at the time that you purchased the vehicle.

I am not trying to argue with you, or say that you are 100 per cent wrong, but simply that the situation is nowhere near as clear cut as you seem to suggest. If it came to an accident, you can argue until you are blue in the face about whether you are a tourist or should be on a Thai or foreign DL or not, but I assure you that ownership of your own vehicle would be a factor against you on that front as far as the insurance company are concerned and they may (i.e. nothing is certain) seek to void the policy for non-compliance (not having a valid DL). If you came and went frequently, and you stayed in different places each time, that that would indicate that you were a tourist and that accordingly, you were not required to have a local DL as you weren't in the country for a distinct period of time (according to reports, for more than 3 months).

A certificate of residency simply confirms that an individual lives at an address they declare, stamped for a fee by many embassies including the Australian and US embassies. It has nothing to do with your visa status in Thailand, which is of no interest to these embassies nor is it any of their business either. It's simply a Thai requirement regarding showing proof of your residence and the same document is requested no matter if you're on a Thai tourist visa or an extension of stay for marriage or work. Only permanent residents may be allowed to use a yellow house registration book or non-citizen ID card, but even they are sometimes still requested to obtain the so-called certificate of residency.

[manfredtillmann]

i did not have / need a certificate of residency to buy my almera, only a tm30 which stated my gf's bluebook address (her mother's home) as my address (where i don't live!).

and i am a tourist, i come and go several times a year. and i have never been here longer than 92 days, incl. 2 days overstay last year, in one stretch.

agreed, nothing is clear cut when it comes to dealing with insurance companies and i hope i will never have the need to find out who of us got it right. i just try to cover my butt as good as i can. thank you for your input and thoughts.