Python "pedestrian" precipitates pick-up pile up

[slapout]

Only in Thailand, all ivolved had insurance, so why should police write tickets and point out the error of their ways on the roadway? A chance to educate a group of drivers and most probably a policeman or two lost again.

I wonder if the same logic is used by police on investigation,  where loss of life is involved in questionable circumstances but there is life insurance coverage which will cover those affected?

 

 

 

[kannot]

8 hours ago, wprime said:

2nd and 3rd did nothing wrong. The idea of leaving a safe braking distance in front is to counter for any human delay and difference in braking capability with the car in front. When you actually do have to brake hard this gap closes up so you can't make any judgments about it from post accident scene. The simplest explanation is that the 2nd and 3rd vehicles broke in time while the 4th vehicle hit causing them each to hit the vehicle in front. Anything beyond this requires evidence to substantiate it.

 

So in Thailand the 4th vehicle is at fault for all the damage.

yes so many Thai driver s  fully understand and  abide by this  but Id  take that bet they were too  close

[Jonmarleesco]

10 hours ago, webfact said:

All of the vehicles had insurance so police decided to take no further action.

Surprise, surprise. And if they hadn't - as supposedly required by law - what action would the RTP have taken?

[Deepinthailand]

4 hours ago, malt25 said:

Absolutely !

Considering the possibility of human casualties, the life of the snake isn't even a consideration.

In many western countries the first driver would be guilty of dangerous driving.

Yes, the snake is majestic, but it's only a snake.

Change the snake to a child who's at fault then?

2/3/4 vehicles at fault in both senario's

If your hit from behind it's there fault end of story. 

[Don Mega]

1 minute ago, Jonmarleesco said:

Surprise, surprise. And if they hadn't - as supposedly required by law - what action would the RTP have taken?

Compulsory insurance does not cover this accident unless someone was injured and voluntary insurance is not legally required.

[Mook23]

3 hours ago, ResandePohm said:

This a Buddhist country where belief in reincarnation is prevalent. It may have been his brother in another life so absolutely understandable he didn't want to harm it

And the fish, pork, kung, squid, chicken, etc he eats every day are 100% NOT his reincarnated brother ??

[stegee]

6 hours ago, Kasset Tak said:

Ok, I know that you should not kill animals by intent as a Buddhist but it would have been an accident if the first driver had run it over... I even killed a (small green) snake by bicycle last Saturday!

by braking he avoided killing the snake and proved it's death avoidable;  had he not braked and killed the snake it would, therefore, not have been an accident...

[farcanell]

4 hours ago, hobz said:

But don't you have a right to break at any time? The cars behind must keep a safe distance.

Surely that depends on wether or not it constitutes dangerous or reckless driving... in this case, it appears to be dangerous/ reckless driving, causing an accident, which could well have injured other road users

 

actually, im quite amazed that it didn't.

 

its also amazing that no charges were laid, because everyone had insurance.... what the hell has that got to do with it? Since when has that been a litmus test for liability?

 

I would be upset if my premiums went up, post accident, because some fool decided to brake suddenly and recklessly.

 

but then.... I'm also amazed that I'm amazed! Amazing Thailand.

[stegee]

Just now, farcanell said:

I would be upset if my premiums went up, post accident, because some fool decided to brake suddenly and recklessly.

 

if your premiums go up you just change insurers- thailand style...

[2008bangkok]

8 hours ago, wprime said:

2nd and 3rd did nothing wrong. The idea of leaving a safe braking distance in front is to counter for any human delay and difference in braking capability with the car in front. When you actually do have to brake hard this gap closes up so you can't make any judgments about it from post accident scene. The simplest explanation is that the 2nd and 3rd vehicles broke in time while the 4th vehicle hit causing them each to hit the vehicle in front. Anything beyond this requires evidence to substantiate it.

 

So in Thailand the 4th vehicle is at fault for all the damage.

Wel well well we have a real life columbo in da house.

Isnt the rule you leave a safe breaking distance to the car in front and also drive at a speed that will enable you to stop in time under certain conditions?

[Golden Triangle]

19 minutes ago, 2008bangkok said:

Wel well well we have a real life columbo in da house.

Isnt the rule you leave a safe breaking distance to the car in front and also drive at a speed that will enable you to stop in time under certain conditions?

I agree with what you say, I drove back from Trat to home on Sunday afternoon,  I rarely go above 100 kph and I always, and I mean always, leave a large gap between myself and the vehicle in front, but as usual that gap is reduced as some fool will always want to jump in it meaning I have to back off to maintain a safety margin, it sometimes feels as though I am going backwards, at one point a minivan and 2 pickups came past me in the outside lane, they were tail gating each other and could have easily filled the space between me and the car in front, that's how much room I leave. Bloody morons. 

[hobz]

50 minutes ago, farcanell said:

Surely that depends on wether or not it constitutes dangerous or reckless driving... in this case, it appears to be dangerous/ reckless driving, causing an accident, which could well have injured other road users

 

actually, im quite amazed that it didn't.

 

its also amazing that no charges were laid, because everyone had insurance.... what the hell has that got to do with it? Since when has that been a litmus test for liability?

 

I would be upset if my premiums went up, post accident, because some fool decided to brake suddenly and recklessly.

 

but then.... I'm also amazed that I'm amazed! Amazing Thailand.

But you have to keep a safe distance. There's multiple valid reasons for sudden break. There's no valid reason for staying too close.

 

And yeah the police decision is baffling. And i too am baffled that im baffled. Tit.

[Sakeopete]

5 hours ago, hobz said:

A perfect opportunity for the RTP to fine people for driving too close... it's part of the danger everywhere on thai roads.. pushy drivers too close ...  the police useless as usual

It is almost impossible in Thailand to not follow too close. If you leave a safe distance from the car in front of you some Somchia will take the opportunity to get in front of you. It just doesn't work in this country Thai drivers think they are in a Mad Max film chasing Mel Gibson.

[nakhonandy]

3 hours ago, dageurreotype said:

In the UK they would have been held responsible for driving too close, thus causing the accident. But not in Tailgate Thailand. Refer to my post re 'braking distances' not being taught at driving schools/test centres here. 

Actually if the guy in front just hammered on the anchors, easily proven from skid marks, he would be done for dangerous driving in the UK.

 

Stopping for an animal whilst risking the lives of other drivers is madness.

[bangon04]

6 hours ago, Don Mega said:

So your saying the guy who braked for the snake is the one responsible ?

In some countries - emergency braking other than to protect human life would make you liable

[Don Mega]

8 minutes ago, bangon04 said:

In some countries - emergency braking other than to protect human life would make you liable

Is that the case in Thailand ?

 

If not your point has little relevance.

[bangon04]

Just now, Don Mega said:

Is that the case in Thailand ?

 

If not your point has little relevance.

Not sure - are you an animal lover who thinks that to risk killing humans to save a reptile is a good way to live?

[Don Mega]

6 minutes ago, bangon04 said:

Not sure - are you an animal lover who thinks that to risk killing humans to save a reptile is a good way to live?

Me personally I would have either swerved if possible or if not ran it over but iam not Buddhist  so I do not know how their mindset works in these matters suffice to say though if they were not tailgating each other (which is the norm here and needs to be policed) the outcome would have been vastly different.

[oldlakey]

Shirking responsibility would not have been an option for hissing Sid if he had been a Burmese Python

[sanukjim]

Driving into another vehicle when he stops suddenly is the car in the rear's fraught for not driving at a prescribed distant,(even though it is almost impossible in Thailand to keep a correct distant.).Install Very Large bumpers.

[wprime]

3 hours ago, kannot said:

yes so many Thai driver s  fully understand and  abide by this  but Id  take that bet they were too  close

They probably were but the law doesn't judge people based on what is commonly done but what can be proven.

 

2 hours ago, 2008bangkok said:

Wel well well we have a real life columbo in da house.

Isnt the rule you leave a safe breaking distance to the car in front and also drive at a speed that will enable you to stop in time under certain conditions?

Yes and yes.

[hobz]

3 hours ago, Sakeopete said:

It is almost impossible in Thailand to not follow too close. If you leave a safe distance from the car in front of you some Somchia will take the opportunity to get in front of you. It just doesn't work in this country Thai drivers think they are in a Mad Max film chasing Mel Gibson.

Yeah, they all need reeducation.

[hobz]

6 hours ago, fruitman said:

Last year there was a small snake on the road in our moobaan. I stopped to have a close look at it and while i was standing there looking at the snake a Fortuner passed and drove full over it right infront of me.

 

Why do they stop for big snakes and soidogs and don't give a duck about motocy-drivers?

Good question... Wish there was a good answer...

[ratcatcher]

3 hours ago, nakhonandy said:

Actually if the guy in front just hammered on the anchors, easily proven from skid marks, he would be done for dangerous driving in the UK.

 

Stopping for an animal whilst risking the lives of other drivers is madness.

"Stopping for an animal.............."

A horse enters the highway in front of you, you brake and get rear ended . Who is to blame the horse, you, or the guy behind you who rear ends your vehicle because he's driving too close and unable to stop in an emergency.? Fortunately for Monty, he isn't in the UK.

[farcanell]

3 hours ago, sanukjim said:

Driving into another vehicle when he stops suddenly is the car in the rear's fraught for not driving at a prescribed distant,(even though it is almost impossible in Thailand to keep a correct distant.).Install Very Large bumpers.

Not nessesarily.... what this guy did falls into the category of being partially liable by driving erratically (suddenly slamming on the brakes).

 

it also, arguably, falls into the catorgory of reckless and/or negligent driving, as well, wherein he should have been aware that slamming on the anchors could result in endangering others

[hobz]

2 hours ago, ratcatcher said:

"Stopping for an animal.............."

A horse enters the highway in front of you, you brake and get rear ended . Who is to blame the horse, you, or the guy behind you who rear ends your vehicle because he's driving too close and unable to stop in an emergency.? Fortunately for Monty, he isn't in the UK.

Beautifully written. Can I hire you to translate my thoughts into text?

[farcanell]

3 hours ago, ratcatcher said:

"Stopping for an animal.............."

A horse enters the highway in front of you, you brake and get rear ended . Who is to blame the horse, you, or the guy behind you who rear ends your vehicle because he's driving too close and unable to stop in an emergency.? Fortunately for Monty, he isn't in the UK.

Lol ratchater.... a perverted view.

 

come on... compare apples to apples, or however that saying goes.

 

running into a horse will kill you! Running over a snake, will not, unless its a poisonous little barstool, that gets wrapped around your drivetrain, then slithers out and bites you when you stop

 

the man should never have braked, to avoid flattening a snake, (lol) and putting other lives in danger.

 

that said... if he had situational awareness, and knew that a sudden and unexpected braking action would not endanger other humans... then... and only then, is suddenly braking acceptable.

 

as a road user, your required to consider all road users, not just those in front of you.

[nisakiman]

Python "pedestrian" precipitates pick-up pile up

 

Has anybody else noticed that the ThaiVisa news team seem to have a particular fondness for alliteration?

 

I'm not being critical at all - I enjoy the humour of it - but it seems to occur here on a very regular basis! :)

[nakhonandy]

13 hours ago, ratcatcher said:

"Stopping for an animal.............."

A horse enters the highway in front of you, you brake and get rear ended . Who is to blame the horse, you, or the guy behind you who rear ends your vehicle because he's driving too close and unable to stop in an emergency.? Fortunately for Monty, he isn't in the UK.

OK, obviously there is no choice for a large animal. Of course you stop and don't risk your life. It all depends on the circumstances.

In this case I wouldn't have stopped, try to avoid if possible, yes.

[lvr181]

Animism is alive and well in Thailand (and many other ASIAN countries).

 

The collision fault lays with all or some of the other following drivers, not the utility driver who stopped for the snake.