SURVEY: Do you agree with not allowing passengers in the back of pickups?

[Basil B]

It is a way of life... many families need transport and have invested in a pickup primary to move families and workers around and are now being told it is not suitable for purpose.

 

Maybe they should buy them mini vans which can not be used by the bus companies.

 

The only way to enforce this law is to introduce it in stages.

Say:

1. reduced speed limit and banning from motorways
2. then ban from fast highways
3. then only allow in rural areas
4. then total ban.

 

P.S. I did not vote as I see none of the options appropriate to my opinion.

[F4UCorsair]

2 hours ago, Moonlover said:

It's the sort of thing that an autocratic, communist regime can get away with.

 

I was in China when they banned the use of mobile phones when driving and when they introduced the ban on plastic bags.

 

It happened - bang - just like that!

 

Maybe Thailand should stop faffing around with pseudo democracy!

Difficult policy to change in a developing country.  

What drives policies like this in Australia,  is that casualties suck up resources in a free public health system, so it's legislated against. Thailand doesn't have, nor can afford, such a system.

One of the cornerstones of Lee Kwan Yew's early time as leader was....you can't give peasants freedoms because they can't manage their own lives.

He was right, and peasants comprise about 95% of any population.

[Ijustcashier]

It is a way of life... many families need transport and have invested in a pickup primary to move families and workers around and are now being told it is not suitable for purpose.
 
Maybe they should buy them mini vans which can not be used by the bus companies.
 
The only way to enforce this law is to introduce it in stages.
Say:

1. reduced speed limit and banning from motorways
2. then ban from fast highways
3. then only allow in rural areas
4. then total ban.

 
P.S. I did not vote as I see none of the options appropriate to myr opinion.

Democratic government had years to do this but were afraid of voter back lash.
Only problem is it will take years and thousands of lives. With social media now the news travels fast and thailand has taken a beating regarding its shocking road toll hence the quick fix with vans and pick ups

[starky]

2 hours ago, wanderluster said:

think about what is most important to issan people?   convience or life?  life is cheap. convience is expensive.  this is how isaan thinks.   this is their way of life...   it is not a western way, but we are not in the west.  we chose to live here and we need to adhere to thai ways of life.  it is the same as the muslims going over to england and making sharia law..  most of the english dont like it..  most of the thais dont want western rules either.

and that is my 2 cents, and probably not worth anything more than that.

At least someone understands.

[Basil B]

1 hour ago, Ijustcashier said:

Democratic government had years to do this but were afraid of voter back lash.
Only problem is it will take years and thousands of lives. With social media now the news travels fast and thailand has taken a beating regarding its shocking road toll hence the quick fix with vans and pick ups

We have democratic government in the UK and our laws are a lot stricter than what Thailand is trying to enforce.

 

https://www.theaa.com/driving-advice/safety/child-safety/seatbelts

Quote

With few exceptions, all children under 12 years and under 135cm tall must use an appropriate child restraint when travelling in any car or goods vehicle.

• All children under 3 years old must use an appropriate child restraint when travelling in any car or goods vehicle (except in the rear of a taxi if a child seat is not available).
• Children aged 3 or more years old, and up to 135cm (approx 4ft 5in) tall, must use an appropriate child restraint when travelling in cars or goods vehicles fitted with seat belts. A few exceptions are permitted.
• Rear-facing baby seats mustn't be used in seats with an active front air-bag
• If seat belts are provided, you can't carry more people in the rear than there are seats fitted with belts or restraints.
• Your child seats must be approved to the '03' or later version of Regulation 44, so an approval label with 44.03 or 44.04 is ok but you can't use a seat with 44.02
• Since April 2015, child seats may also be approved to Regulation 129 (i-Size)

[digger70]

Sadly this country has the attitude of no one gives a shit,So only drastic measures will have an effect.fine them once no matter what for /Helmet/licence/pickup full of people in the cargo tray/and a ton for traffic offences.fine them twice for the same offence for the 3rd offence lose the vehicle for  month,4th offence lose the vehicle for 6 months ,5th offence Crush the vehicle .This will make them think for sure.

[George Bowman]

Seen on the Outer Ring Road a few years back.

[colinchaffers]

I think there is a balance to be made, I live in the country and every day i see pick ups with workers in the back, only 4 or 5, if these rules were enforced it would have an negative impact on these workers, however, as the picture above shows some people take it too far. I hope they get the right solution.

 

 

[stevenl]

4 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

I agree.

 

It seems unlikely that anyone actually wants to sit/stand in the back of a pickup (apart from Songkran...), but rather have no other choice.

 

Obviously its not as safe as sitting in a car - but then again I'd be suprised if riding a 'bike is not even more unsafe when it comes to casualty statistics.  Should riding a 'bike be banned too?

Quite a few Thais I know prefer the back of the pickup over the cabin: more space, smoking allowed, fresh wind, etc.

[TravelerEastWest]

5 hours ago, Wilsonandson said:

No, Thailand like the states have many pickup trucks. Accidents do happen but a person who sits on the back of a pickup knows they are taking a higher risk, the same as someone smoking knows they are taking a higher risk. In the U.K I had rarely sat in the back of a pickup truck. Mainly because not many people have one. But When I went with my mum to carboot sales alot when I was a teenager I'd be in the back of her hatchback car squashed in with all the bric-o-brak, furniture, etc. No seatbelt on. I'm sure this is still the case in the U.K. People got to make a living.

 

So, no I don't agree with this new pickup law. Thailand is the land of pickup trucks! Impose this new law would be a very unpopular move by the current government.

 

The main reason there is a high number of deaths on the roads of Bangkok is that many people don't wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle. Not pickups overturning with people in the back.

Freedom is certainly a good thing, but you left out a key point often those without helmets seat belts etc are uninsured and taxpayers end up paying for the medical care. I have never been to the UK and perhaps your national healthcare has figured out a way to fairly place the burden for acre from those who don't wear seat belts etc...?

 

In my car we don't move an inch unless everyone is wearing a seatbelt.

[Basil B]

1 hour ago, missoura said:

Seen on the Outer Ring Road a few years back.

Thankfully with that load it can not accelerate fast, and good chance the breaks not work too....

[GreasyFingers]

I am old enought to have driven cars and bikes in Oz before they were compulsory: no riding in the back of a ute, seat belts and  bike helmets. I love Thailand, I love riding in the back of a ute, I love the air flowing through my hair when riding a bike without a helmet, and most times drive without the seat belt. Thank goodness for Thailand that is practical and has not listened to the weak, mealy mouthed do-gooders even though they have the laws.

[GreasyFingers]

2 hours ago, F4UCorsair said:

Difficult policy to change in a developing country.  

What drives policies like this in Australia,  is that casualties suck up resources in a free public health system, so it's legislated against.

That is BS. It all came from the insurance companies that do not like to pay out.

[BuaBS]

It should be up to the passengers , where they sit in a pickup truck , likewise seatbelts . This is Thailand , not a western nanny state . People should be free to ignore safety regulations as long as they don't expect society to pay for their medical expenses.

[jerojero]

If you let children decide what's for dinner you will get a steady diet of candy and ice cream.
Adults have to make adult decisions. People should wear a helmets, not drive drunk, and
not ride in the back of pickups. I suppose some accommodation could be made. Exception
in city limits with a 50kph speed limit. Of course it is inconvenient but it will save lives.

But, but, but....many farangs will cry about Thailand turning into a 'nanny state'. They like the wild west model.

[wow64]

Of course they should be allowed in the back of pickups. 

 

Its not the people in the back that is causing the problem. It's the guy that refuses to enforce the law and asks for 2-400b to be on your way. This will just be another excuse to ask for money from the poor.

[wakeupplease]

The problem is up country they rely on pick-ups for everything including taking people to work so maybe speed limit max 50kph with passengers in back, might be in order, not 120+kph I saw every day. There is no difference between Bangkok and Isann people they are all human, but some think they are a cut above the rest, mind you they think they are also better than a Farang who can count to 10 and that is your problem "Racialism"

[Ijustcashier]

End of the day the reality is the junta can enforce the law.. Because they can, they don't care and can't get voted out

Democratically elected governments need votes and pissing off half the voters in Thailand would not bode well with their long term grubby greed.

You can't rape the country if your not in power! So nothing would ever have been done.. Ever!

[nobU eoJ]

define "back of pickups" as in:

1. back seat in a super-cab, or

2. cargo box?

 

Should do whats legal and carry only as many passengers as there are certified OEM seat belt restraints.

[4MyEgo]

9 hours ago, realenglish1 said:

They should be allowed within the inner city but not on highways and roads exceeding 60 km per hour

This is still a 3rd world country

 

Child safety seats are not even considered here 

My sister in law was in an accident last year and her younger kid was thrown about in the car but not seriously  hurt.

Even still there is no consideration for a child car seat Even after that

 

 

It really is up to the parents to take responsibility on that IMO, because we all know the cops don't give a rats.

 

Glad to hear the little one escaped any serious injuries.

 

I have an almost 3 year old, we purchased her a baby car seat from Robinson's before we purchased the car 14 months ago.

 

We are in rural Thailand and sometimes we have to go to town without the baby seat so everyone can fit in the pickup, because there is not enough room now that the law is changing, and we really don't want the boys (twins 13) in the back tray unless absolutely necessary, so the little one shares the seat belt with mum in the front and as the roads are pretty straight and level, it really isn't an issue with town being 15 minutes away, although I still do feel uncomfortable about it, an upgrade might just have to take place in the ensuing months, but as we don't all travel in the pickup together that often, the expense might just have to wait for a longer period of time ?

[USPatriot]

I won't and i won't let my kids ride in the back. But if someone want to then let them ride in the back of the truck.

[steve73]

This law certainly used to be enforced on motorway and expressways.

 

Perhaps if drunk driving, excessive speeding, and other dangerous driving was better enforced and prosecuted, then there'd be fewer accidents of all types, with less innocent lives lost.

 

I've seen the use of the rear bed of PU's in rural areas as school transport, and provided the drivers are careful there should be little problem.  Same goes for other rural uses.

 

As to seatbelts, I always use mine as a matter of habit (coming from the UK), and also as it's likely to have some benefit when/if some idiot driver runs into me.  I also insist that rear passenger wear theirs simply because I don't want them head-butting me.  (Selfish perhaps?)

 

But I rarely wear a plastic dish when on a motorcycle (unless I'm going into an area known for it's exuberant police).  TBH, I find a am much more aware of my surroundings & other road users than if I do wear a helmet, and the in the event of the most likely accident caused by a speeding PU, minibus, or 6-wheeler it would offer precious little benefit.  By not wearing a helmet I am risking nobody's life but my own.

 

The drunk, speeding, or dangerous driver is potentially risking many of other lives, and this is where the enforcement effort should be applied.

[mommysboy]

Looks like a majority think people should be allowed in the back of a pick up.

 

Officiating just how many, what age, etc, would turn in to a farce, so I guess it would be business as usual.

 

The result so far has surprised me.

[Celer et Audax]

Farangs advise, helpful hints and suggestions mean eF all in this country. So we can all scream and shout from the roof tops, but it is not going to change a damn thing. Remember Shane and his mom, from his bike accident on Phuket, trying to get the wear a helmet campaign, well it only lasted about 7 months then the police even stopped wearing a helmet. I wonder how Vietnam change in a very short space of time....executions???
 

No just enforcement big fine for the first offence loose the bike for the second
Key word "enforcement"


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Sheryl]

I think it is not a matter of what ideally "should" be, but of what is practical and feasible in the current  socioeconomic environment.

 

People riding in the back of pick ups are not all (or even mostly) out for a good time. Most are travelling to or from work or on other essential errands and they aren't in the back of the pick up by choice, but rather because it is the only means of transport readily available for them, that they can afford.

 

I live in a very rural area.  Many locals here get around that way. If I were to count vehicles passing on the road, at least 1 out of 5 would be a pick up with passengers in the back. Often migrant laborers. There are no public buses out here.

 

While well-intentioned, the effect of a law like this will be to penalize those who can afford it the least. It is ahead of its time.

[Celer et Audax]

I am old enought to have driven cars and bikes in Oz before they were compulsory: no riding in the back of a ute, seat belts and  bike helmets. I love Thailand, I love riding in the back of a ute, I love the air flowing through my hair when riding a bike without a helmet, and most times drive without the seat belt. Thank goodness for Thailand that is practical and has not listened to the weak, mealy mouthed do-gooders even though they have the laws.

Presumably you also consider drink driving ok as well?


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[SABloke]

think about what is most important to issan people?   convience or life?  life is cheap. convience is expensive.  this is how isaan thinks.   this is their way of life...   it is not a western way, but we are not in the west.  we chose to live here and we need to adhere to thai ways of life.  it is the same as the muslims going over to england and making sharia law..  most of the english dont like it..  most of the thais dont want western rules either.
and that is my 2 cents, and probably not worth anything more than that.

''it is not a western way...'' one of those condescending statements made by people who are so "immersed" in the culture they find themselves in.

''we need to adhere to thai ways of life''...another veiled semi-racist statement. (My Thai friends, including the ones that can't afford it, see the benefit of this law - some accept that they have to take the risk but would jump at the opportunity to buy a bigger/safer car or have safer public transport options)

What's the bet this poster is against child marriages and the incarceration of rape victims in Saudi Arabia

Factually speaking though, many "Eastern" countries do have strict road rule enforcement. Hell from my understanding of the FACTS: Every Asian country in the world has better road death statistics than Thailand and many are poorer countries.

[Moonmoon]

Let me give an example of my own. 17 years ago i served in the army. Got in an accident as my staff sergeant overslept and overturn, driving the the army jeep(army vehicles can only travel 55km/h by law). I was in the back and another sergeant was infront. I got a stitches on my head in the hospital, the sergeant infront broke his arm and the staff was not injured.

 

In Thailand, vehicles r traveling twice this speed everyday on the roads.

If most drivers in Thailand would drive safely, this law even though in place would not be enforced.

By protesting against this law, i would think that the citizens say its ok, we dont need you to protect us, we will take responsibility of our own lives.

This would be ok if most are responsible drivers here, but that is far from the truth. Becos of that, these irresponsible drivers drag others into accidents causing injuries and deaths to the misfortunate.

For the enforcement of this law, they have none other but themselves to blame.

So deal with it.

Edited April 9, 2017 by Moonmoon

[tukkytuktuk]

I have found the solution to this problem here in Thailand. I think you'll agree this is a far better idea

 

[Celer et Audax]

This law certainly used to be enforced on motorway and expressways.
 
Perhaps if drunk driving, excessive speeding, and other dangerous driving was better enforced and prosecuted, then there'd be fewer accidents of all types, with less innocent lives lost.
 
I've seen the use of the rear bed of PU's in rural areas as school transport, and provided the drivers are careful there should be little problem.  Same goes for other rural uses.
 
As to seatbelts, I always use mine as a matter of habit (coming from the UK), and also as it's likely to have some benefit when/if some idiot driver runs into me.  I also insist that rear passenger wear theirs simply because I don't want them head-butting me.  (Selfish perhaps?)
 
But I rarely wear a plastic dish when on a motorcycle (unless I'm going into an area known for it's exuberant police).  TBH, I find a am much more aware of my surroundings & other road users than if I do wear a helmet, and the in the event of the most likely accident caused by a speeding PU, minibus, or 6-wheeler it would offer precious little benefit.  By not wearing a helmet I am risking nobody's life but my own.
 
The drunk, speeding, or dangerous driver is potentially risking many of other lives, and this is where the enforcement effort should be applied.

I agree that you are not risking anybody else's life by not wearing a helmet when on your motorbike but you are breaking the law by not doing so
Do you have children or a Thai partner or friends? What massage are you giving to them?
My gf (4yrs) never used to wear a helmet when we met but now she does all the time and not because I tell her but by setting an example
She got the hint because I would sit on the back of her fino with a helmet on and she said I looked silly but she got the massage as did her daughter!!
We both have big bikes now Z300 and Z900 and again by setting an example she now wears the full gear, helmet, gloves, jacket and trousers, and boots, no more shorts and t shirts and flip flops


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app