Accident video: Netizens debate whether it was the taxi driver's fault or the bike rider's

[Seismic]

15 minutes ago, mettech said:

They are both at fault it was a preventable accident and not to forget they have the same way of thinking so it does explain the accident.

I always had a problem with the phrase "preventable accident", it was a much quoted slogan in my company's HSE literature. the definition of an accident is:

 

1, an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause.

or

2, an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance

 

in which case an accident is simply impossible to prevent.

[mettech]

Just now, Seismic said:

I always had a problem with the phrase "preventable accident", it was a much quoted slogan in my company's HSE literature. the definition of an accident is:

 

1, an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause.

or

2, an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance

 

in which case an accident is simply impossible to prevent.

I agree with you on that one i have been driving semie tractor trailer and safety always blame by using preventable accident so you loose your safety bonus.

[mickyboy]

why have a helmet and not wear it  he going to fast and could not stop in time he hit the back that cab his problem

[captspectre]

what part of the road law "KEEP LEFT" did they M/C driver not understand? those people drive wherever they want, against traffic, on the side walk, 

[NoshowJones]

8 hours ago, Raymonddiaz said:

 The motorcycle driver is wrong. That's very clear . ( for those who know traffic rules)

Never mind the rules, common sense will do, though it was not used by any one of the two of them.

[NoshowJones]

7 hours ago, jasonsamui55 said:

It's ALWAYS the fault of whoever hits someone from behind. They need to leave more space or pay attention. In a world of "no fault" insurance, rear-ending someone is one of the few instances where you are 100% at fault no matter what.

I don't necessary agree with that, you could be driving keeping a good distance from the vehicle in front, when another vehicle overtakes you, then cuts in front of you cutting your'e braking distance, then suddenly brakes before you get the chance to increase your'e braking distance.

[NoshowJones]

7 hours ago, Don Mega said:

The scooter ran into the Taxi, no brainer as to who is at fault.

Not necessary, IMO, both were at fault.

[NoshowJones]

6 hours ago, lungnorm said:

Where I come from we have one basic rule which avoids all this finger pointing the blame. If you hit a vehicle in the rear it is your fault no matter what the reason maybe.It works quite good and is accepted by all.

It is accepted by me 95%.

[NoshowJones]

5 hours ago, kennw said:

The law says you should travel at a speed and distance behind the vehicle ahead that will enable you to slow or stop safely. Bike rider definitely at fault.

As I keep saying, never mind the law, use common sense. The law also says that motorbikes should always stay in the left hand lane, what a load of crap, I will just use common sense and increase my chances of not being in an accident. It is worth giving the bent cops 300 Bt to get away with it.

[stegee]

it's the fault of the thai dvla who gave them both a licence to drive...

[NoshowJones]

5 hours ago, denby45 said:

If you try to keep an eye on what motorcycle riders are doing all the time you will go mad.

 

 

Den

Same applies to keeping an eye on car, bus, truck drivers etc. TiT.

[Thaimike370]

Motor cyclists fault, going too fast, not giving himself enough time to stop.

[lvr181]

Regardless of what the taxi driver did in this instance, the m/c should have avoided him! A simple "law" of survivability, regardless of the road rules/law! 

[wgdanson]

13 hours ago, bearpolar said:

the helmet survived

But it obviously wasn't fastened cos it came off.

[Don Mega]

Just now, wgdanson said:

But it obviously wasn't fastened cos it came off.

 

If you watch the video you will notice it was not on his head.

 

[Pattaya28]

And where was the "Safety Helmet" ? 

 

Anywhere but the riders head. IDIOT.

[Myran]

Both are wrong, but the taxi more so. The taxi changes to a clear lane and then breaks while staying in it. He then changes lanes yet again, but without indicating that he's doing so. If you are claiming that the taxi driver didn't do anything wrong, take your drivers license and cut it in half.

 

9 hours ago, jasonsamui55 said:

It's ALWAYS the fault of whoever hits someone from behind. They need to leave more space or pay attention. In a world of "no fault" insurance, rear-ending someone is one of the few instances where you are 100% at fault no matter what.

 

Right, so if you're driving on the highway and about to pass a slow-moving car in another lane, you are at fault if he swerves into your lane just ahead of you without indicating, and stomps on the break? No, of course not.

[farcanell]

36 minutes ago, Myran said:

Both are wrong, but the taxi more so. The taxi changes to a clear lane and then breaks while staying in it. He then changes lanes yet again, but without indicating that he's doing so. If you are claiming that the taxi driver didn't do anything wrong, take your drivers license and cut it in half.

 

 

Right, so if you're driving on the highway and about to pass a slow-moving car in another lane, you are at fault if he swerves into your lane just ahead of you without indicating, and stomps on the break? No, of course not.

 

Really????

 

Obviously your seeing things most others aren't.

 

there was no "brake stomping" just minor corrections in speed.

 

 

 

 

[opouri]

As others have stated the Motor bike is at fault he rear ended the taxi. 

[daiwill60]

It does seem that the motorCy was going a bit fast and should have maybe in the motorcycle lane, I also wonder whey the hell the taxi driver braked??  But at least it does seem that further up the road the Taxi driver has stopped , just beyond the big sign on the left, why?  Maybe it isn't his cab , and being as he was rear ended he wants repayment from  the motorCy's insurnace company, presuming he has one , of course!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'insurance 

[yooyoo]

12 hours ago, Raymonddiaz said:

 The motorcycle driver is wrong. That's very clear . ( for those who know traffic rules)

 

That rules out almost the entire Thai nation...

[wprime]

The taxi intentionally trying to cause the accident can't be used unless conclusive (which it is not in this case) so it comes down to simply, if the bike was already in the left lane and at such speed that he couldn't stop in time then it is split responsibility (taxi made an unsafe lane change but could not reasonably expect the bike to be passing on the left at such speed), otherwise it's the bike's fault totally.

 

[optad]

Care factor of the taxi, zero.

Did he cause the accident, probably.

Is he liable, probably not.

Moral. Don't ride. Get cam. Don't stop. 

 

So messed up.

[kannot]

12 hours ago, wgdanson said:

But it obviously wasn't fastened cos it came off.

the  helmet  was  never  on

[jasonsamui55]

On 12/27/2016 at 7:33 AM, maoro2013 said:

Quite common to refuse to go to a dstination. Supposed to be illegal now, but the situation still exists.

 And that's why Uber exists. I hope they put the a$$ taxi drivers out of business. I'd choose an Uber any time over a BKK taxi!

[jasonsamui55]

23 hours ago, bkk75 said:

 

I disagree with you.  There are some very specific situations.  I had one and mind you this was in Canada where most people (except for many Asian immigrants) do know how to drive.

 

It was a wet evening and I was following a car with sufficient distance but suddenly the car in front breaks while in middle of intersection.  I nearly rear ended her but I stopped in time.  I don't think what she was thinking but she panicked as the light started to turn.  She reversed and backed into me even though I was constantly honking.

 

She lied in front of insurance agents that I rear ended her.  This was before time of car cam dash.  F@ckin b#tch.

 

 

Yes, and reversing is the other of two exceptions where someone is 100% at fault. In short, if you rear end someone, you're 100% at fault and if you're going in reverse you are 100% at fault. Any idiot knows that you need to look where you are going and be extra cautious, especially if they're reversing into a lane of oncoming traffic. That's just idiotic. You're totally not at fault there!

[tgeezer]

I don't necessary agree with that, you could be driving keeping a good distance from the vehicle in front, when another vehicle overtakes you, then cuts in front of you cutting your'e braking distance, then suddenly brakes before you get the chance to increase your'e braking distance.

This is a good point, the maritime rule should apply. Overtaking vessels must keep clear . There was a horrific film from China where a minibus overtook into the breaking distance between two trucks just as truck number one stopped, nothing left of the minibus.



Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[tomyummer]

It's always the guy behind at fault. Not enough distance, no matter how errant the driver in front is.

[farcanell]

53 minutes ago, tgeezer said:

This is a good point, the maritime rule should apply. Overtaking vessels must keep clear . There was a horrific film from China where a minibus overtook into the breaking distance between two trucks just as truck number one stopped, nothing left of the minibus.



Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

 

Maritime rules generally exert that the larger vessel has right of way.

 

 

[tgeezer]

 
Maritime rules generally exert that the larger vessel has right of way.
 
 

Not when I went to school. Manoeuvreabilty is a consideration naturally, sailing vessels have ROW over tankers but prudence dictates a realistic approach. Defensive driving is similar to operating at sea in this respect.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect