Welcome to Thailand! Tourists get a taste of Thai roads travelling from Swampy to Don Muang

[F4UCorsair]

The headline should read

 

TOURISTS GET A TASTE OF THAI DRIVERS' STUPIDITY...ON TWO COUNTS!

 

Firstly the truck driver for raising the tray, and secondly the taxi driver for not stopping/slowing when he couldn't see because of the dust.

 

The 'fail safe' system stops the tray being raised in the event of ANY failure.  Finger trouble by the driver.

 

 

[moe666]

18 hours ago, jackspratt498 said:

"As he approached the scene there was a lot of dust and he could not see anything..."

 

So, at this point of course he stops right?

 

Because, if you're driving a minivan with a bunch of people, of course you're not going to just keep driving forward right?

 

Because you can't see what's in front of you and that's really, reeeaallly important right?

 

If you can't outright stop you're going to slow waaay down as safely and as quickly as possible because, what's causing all that dust right?

 

Right?

 

Ahh <deleted> it! Just keep going.

 

So back to the story where of course " ...he smacked into the back of the truck."

 

 

 

 

 

lets think about this freeway traffic probably close to bumper to bumper, more than likely not enough time and space to do any of the things he mentioned unless of course youwere there as a witness.

[sahibji]

20 hours ago, HoboKay said:

So 4% not ever returning I guess?

where is that figure from?

[sahibji]

i am surprised that this article is headline ...."  tourists get a taste of Thai roads."

 

it is more to do with a truck equipment malfunction leading to a taxi hitting the vehicle due to poor  vision.

[sahibji]

1 hour ago, moe666 said:

lets think about this freeway traffic probably close to bumper to bumper, more than likely not enough time and space to do any of the things he mentioned unless of course youwere there as a witness.

a more likely scene. I suspect the taxi driver was not alert as he should have applied his brakes upon seeing  "a lot of dust".

[sahibji]

14 hours ago, lungnorm said:

It is not impossible for the tray of the truck to raise without the driver knowing. Sounds crazy but it has happened twice in Sydney Australia in the last couple of years in motorway tunnels. In one instance the damage was very substantial to the tunnel the roof was smashed for a couple of hundred metres. I missed the follow up story but the comments on talk back radio by other truck drivers left no doubt it was possible if the driver had not followed all the operating rules. There is a lock out lever which is supposed to negate any mistaken raising of the tray but even this is not foolproof.

 

14 hours ago, lungnorm said:

It is not impossible for the tray of the truck to raise without the driver knowing. Sounds crazy but it has happened twice in Sydney Australia in the last couple of years in motorway tunnels. In one instance the damage was very substantial to the tunnel the roof was smashed for a couple of hundred metres. I missed the follow up story but the comments on talk back radio by other truck drivers left no doubt it was possible if the driver had not followed all the operating rules. There is a lock out lever which is supposed to negate any mistaken raising of the tray but even this is not foolproof.

a human error leading to the truck equipment malfunction. the taxi driver should have noticed the dust cloud and taken action in time to avoid the hit.

[chicowoodduck]

Kind of like a mouse with a hard on telling the draw bridge operator to rise the bridge....somethings are just too good to be true?

[mikosan]

We seem to have forgotten the main topic of this post. The taxi driver smashed into the back of the truck, for god's sake. How the truck happened to be there and what happened to raise or not raise it's back end, hydraulics of whatever else, is completely irrelevant. In any country in the world, if you smash into the back of a vehicle in front of you IT'S YOUR FAULT. End of story, the taxi driver was incompetent and it's down to him.

[cumgranosalum]

22 minutes ago, mikosan said:

We seem to have forgotten the main topic of this post. The taxi driver smashed into the back of the truck, for god's sake. How the truck happened to be there and what happened to raise or not raise it's back end, hydraulics of whatever else, is completely irrelevant. In any country in the world, if you smash into the back of a vehicle in front of you IT'S YOUR FAULT. End of story, the taxi driver was incompetent and it's down to him.

That is just another motoring myth promulgated by those who know no better.

[mikosan]

Just now, cumgranosalum said:

That is just another motoring myth promulgated by those who know no better.

What's the motoring myth? You smash into the back of someone, it's your fault? A myth? Sorry mate, no myth.

 

 

[mikosan]

12 minutes ago, cumgranosalum said:

That is just another motoring myth promulgated by those who know no better.

There are many places you can look to find out that this is not a myth, try this for starters

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rear-end_collision

 

But as you're from Australia you could also try this

https://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080503194213AAj9RTB

 

Actually, try and find somewhere that doesn't say that generally you are at fault.

 

So, no myth mate, check your facts before you write rubbish.

[cumgranosalum]

1 hour ago, mikosan said:

There are many places you can look to find out that this is not a myth, try this for starters

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rear-end_collision

 

But as you're from Australia you could also try this

https://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080503194213AAj9RTB

 

Actually, try and find somewhere that doesn't say that generally you are at fault.

 

So, no myth mate, check your facts before you write rubbish.

You are just emphasising your lack of knowledge on the matter.

learn to read -  "the driver of the car that rear-ends the other car is almost always considered to be at fault due to not leaving enough stopping distance or lack of attention."

[mikosan]

2 hours ago, cumgranosalum said:

You are just emphasising your lack of knowledge on the matter.

learn to read -  "the driver of the car that rear-ends the other car is almost always considered to be at fault due to not leaving enough stopping distance or lack of attention."

That's exactly what I'm saying, maybe you should try reading!

[mike324]

On 10/3/2016 at 10:51 AM, colinneil said:

Is this just another piece of bs?

Usually when the hydraulics fail the ram would not push up.

Or am i missing something.

 

probably just poor reporting in regards to what went wrong that cause the ram to lift up

[jerome2]

On Monday, October 03, 2016 at 10:51 AM, colinneil said:

Is this just another piece of bs?

Usually when the hydraulics fail the ram would not push up.

Or am i missing something.

It has to be the fault of something cannot be a thai's fault

[cumgranosalum]

18 hours ago, mikosan said:

That's exactly what I'm saying, maybe you should try reading!

i read this...

 

" In any country in the world, if you smash into the back of a vehicle in front of you IT'S YOUR FAULT. End of story" - total nonsense.

[whaleboneman]

On 10/3/2016 at 8:45 PM, cumgranosalum said:

is almost always considered to be at fault

This is a common mistake. People don't always read carefully. However it is clear from the statement that It is not always the person who rear ends someone that is at fault. That's what the "almost" means. Also, it is always a good idea to triple check your facts as you may be wrong.

[cumgranosalum]

2 hours ago, whaleboneman said:

This is a common mistake. People don't always read carefully. However it is clear from the statement that It is not always the person who rear ends someone that is at fault. That's what the "almost" means. Also, it is always a good idea to triple check your facts as you may be wrong.

which is precisely what I said - i suspect you are aiming your quote at the wrong person (me?)

[whaleboneman]

16 hours ago, cumgranosalum said:

which is precisely what I said - i suspect you are aiming your quote at the wrong person (me?)

Sorry to add to the confusion. I quoted you as I agree with your understanding of the issue.

[petesc55]

I'm not an expert on dump trucks or trailers, I only pulled them or drove them a few days, but I've driven tractor trailers for over 30 years.

Anything with a hydraulic system can lift on it's own, due to 'static' pressure in the system.   From what I understand this is from the bumping and vibration going down the road.      Dump trucks should have sort of locking mechanism.

I've hauled a lot of fork lifts, farm equipment, front end loaders on flatbed  trailers.    You have to make sure you put a separate tie down (strap or chain) on the lifting device.  (shovel, arm, etc)    Otherwise, they very often work up pressure as you are hauling it, hitting stuff overhead if you are unlucky.    Very common in the US.

I'll guess the locking mechanism wasn't engaged, or somehow failed.    The actual hydraulic system seemed to work fine.   :)

 

 

[georgemandm]

On 03/10/2016 at 6:34 PM, Si Thea01 said:

 

 

I was just wondering, seeing he was asking a question, whether or not there was a word out of place.  He initially asked,

 

Quote > "If a "valve" in the hydraulic system failed it would allow fluid to bypass and and lift the back?  I can see a question here but being worded in this manner it would solicit a different response.  If it read,  " If a "valve" in the hydraulic system failed would it allow fluid to bypass and and lift the back? 

 

This makes more sense, however one should consider the alternatives when noting he ended the initial sentence with a question mark.  Don't know if I'm correct, maybe he'll let us know.

[georgemandm]

You have to  engage the PTO to make the  hydraulic system work .

near impossible for them to go up on there own but you never say impossible do you .

it is more like he left it up by mistake after his last drop I would say .

the wight of the tipping try keeps it down would be  Driver error .