Phuket Police charge British boyfriend for death of Sophie Anderson

[mikecha]

a big loss of life especily the child   no   blame game here pleae 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

r

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Macthehat]

3 hours ago, Moonlover said:

It should be noted that the British police treat every accident site as a potential crime scene. This is why roads are often closed for hours following such an incident.I've not seen how Thai police deal with one so I cannot comment.

 

As far as Mr. Glass is concerned though, I can comment. He faced up to his responsibility for this accident in a very public way on Facebook, by explaining exactly what happened. Any other comments, on this forum really are superfluous.

 

 

 

Police in the UK don't treat every accident site like a crime scene . Police will not get involved unless there is someone injured ...has been their policy for years . RTAs are to be sorted by all parties involved via insurance company's. 

[Goldieinkathu]

16 minutes ago, marko kok prong said:

Catapult effect,forward motion stops abruptly,maybe she is not holding on,she is propelled by ms vs gravity gravity taking her from rear of bike across road into path of oncoming vehicle,,we do not know the speed involved but of course the greater the speed the more the catapult effect,if he had not braked he would of rear ended the car,the catapult effect would maybe have been less,but she could of been propelled into the back window,a bike generally dips slightly when brakes are applied in earnest,adding to the catapult effect,never under estimate the catapult effect.

Which "oncoming vehicle" was this exactly?

 

[Goldieinkathu]

1 hour ago, LivinginKata said:

 

Did you even watch the video .... it was nothing to do with the line of cars parked in the bike lane. The m/bike was in the middle lane and had to slow/stop for a pick-up in front slowing down/stopping.  The big truck was in the outside lane.  Might be that the truck driver could see the situation developing and did not anticipate ... not so uncommon with Thai drivers.   

If you watch the video  , it's clear that the truck was already past the bike when the accident happened. Even if he had seen what happened in his far side mirror I doubt he could have stopped the truck so that none of the 18 wheels would hit the lady on the floor, as you can see it all happened so quickly!

For those of you who have not seen the video I suggest you go to farang-deaths.com and take a look. Maybe then some of these ridiculous posts can stop.

[happyas]

22 minutes ago, Goldieinkathu said:

If you watch the video  , it's clear that the truck was already past the bike when the accident happened. Even if he had seen what happened in his far side mirror I doubt he could have stopped the truck so that none of the 18 wheels would hit the lady on the floor, as you can see it all happened so quickly!

For those of you who have not seen the video I suggest you go to farang-deaths.com and take a look. Maybe then some of these ridiculous posts can stop.

Yes, exactly as i remember the scenario when it  was initially posted ,and as i described in my previous reply to smotherb.

 

Looking again you can see the bike right beside the trucks cab before any event took place, so he 100% did not see it crash.

The trailer wheels, way back from the cab were what killed the poor lady,.

Its not a nice sight/thought, but you can see her on the road between the truck and the 12 wheel trailer, split seconds before her demise.

 

One thing that puzzles a bit is that the white pick up did not appear to brake hard,  so why the rider "lost it" is a bit of a mystery...or as i said, he was inattentive [ not paying full attention to his riding environment ] or inept[ over reacted when the pick up brake lights came on]

 

Either way, its done,and hopefully no more silly posts will come.

 

PS this video also ties in exactly with what the boyfriends explanation was.

Edited May 18, 2017 by happyas

[Moonlover]

46 minutes ago, Macthehat said:

Police in the UK don't treat every accident site like a crime scene . Police will not get involved unless there is someone injured ...has been their policy for years . RTAs are to be sorted by all parties involved via insurance company's. 

Well, true enough. I did omit the ''injury or death'' bit.

[smotherb]

1 hour ago, happyas said:

I never said that you were stupid..i said that your comment was.

 

I'll try make it easier for you to grasp the facts of the story  so you stop embarrassing yourself.

 

The boyfriend/rider through either inattention or ineptness or both hit the brakes  when the car in front of him did likewise, lost control and the bike went down, resulting in her being thrown off the pillion seat and into the edge of  far right lane ,where a large truck and trailer were unfortunately passing by, the trailer wheels running over her head resulting in her death. The rider went left when he hit the road..he survived, she died sadly.

She did not fall off the bike as you keep saying, she was thrown from it!

 

Now ,you tell me how you really believe that she had any input/responsibility at at all resulting in her death.

Well, happyas, it looks like I do owe you an apology. I did not see that the bike went down. I mistakenly thought the bike stayed upright and he passenger fell off.

 

In that case, it is not the passengers' fault. 

[smotherb]

1 hour ago, marko kok prong said:

Catapult effect,forward motion stops abruptly,maybe she is not holding on,she is propelled by ms vs gravity gravity taking her from rear of bike across road into path of oncoming vehicle,,we do not know the speed involved but of course the greater the speed the more the catapult effect,if he had not braked he would of rear ended the car,the catapult effect would maybe have been less,but she could of been propelled into the back window,a bike generally dips slightly when brakes are applied in earnest,adding to the catapult effect,never under estimate the catapult effect.

Yeah, that was my impression, but the bike went down.

[mick01827]

16 hours ago, Goldieinkathu said:

“Both men are being held responsible for the death of Ms Anderson, because both were driving recklessly,” Lt Col Sanit Nookong of Thalang Police station confirmed to The Phuket News today (May 17)
Read more at http://www.thephuketnews.com/phuket-police-charge-british-boyfriend-for-death-of-sophie-anderson-62188.php#8Wxa4TGm4BtPQsSp.99

 

I fail to see how the truck driver could have avoided the accident, IMO he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, hardly reckless driving.

I"m sure that both drivers are heavy enough in their hearts without all of this on top.

Truly a terrible ACCIDENT.

In England it's called 'a traffic collision' because there's  always someone at fault, as a driver of anything you should drive at the appropriate speed and leave enough gap to be able to make an emergency stop, so in the eyes of the law you could say both were at fault. 

[spermwhale]

If he was not drunk it's hard to say realy if he was reckless driving thanks to the crap condition of the roads here and the way people drive. 

He should not be charged especially considering how many thai drivers who kills thousands of people every year are never charged. 

[kingstonkid]

Canada it's called following too close and if there is a fatality it van be vehicular manslaughter. For the drivers of BOTH vehicles also what speeds are involved 

[Moonlover]

2 hours ago, jwest10 said:

That is cheap and I know someone had to pay 3K for definitely not their fault ie indicating to go left in a car and a boy racer, as usual, comes up on the inside  and collides with the car.
Why is there insurance then and many I feel have no insurance or drivers license?

Definitely not his fault? I would question that. We all know that motorcyclists use the left hand lane and we all know that they pass on the inside.

 

I am very wary of this when turning left and do a good mirror check and a sideways glance before turning. An additional tactic I use if there's enough clear space is to move into side lane to block any attempt to pass me on that side.

 

''But'', you may argue, ''the motorcyclist should have seen the indication and not tried to pass''. But come on, we all should know the reality here. I don't think I need elaborate!

 

This all about the culture of 'defencive driving'. Expect the unexpected.and be ready for it. Because it's going to happen one day.

 

BTW as a motorcyclist myself this is the kind of incident that has lead me to conclude never to ride in the inside lane and to never pass a vehicle to its nearside.

[Goldieinkathu]

9 minutes ago, mick01827 said:

In England it's called 'a traffic collision' because there's  always someone at fault, as a driver of anything you should drive at the appropriate speed and leave enough gap to be able to make an emergency stop, so in the eyes of the law you could say both were at fault. 

Call it what you want. For me there was no collision involved, the driver lost control of the bike and the passenger fell into the path of a passing vehicle .I prefer to think of it at an accident but each to their own.

PS.  "Both" - did you watch the video?

[Goldieinkathu]

3 minutes ago, Moonlover said:

Definitely not his fault? I would question that. We all know that motorcyclists use the left hand lane and we all know that they pass on the inside.

 

I am very wary of this when turning left and do a good mirror check and a sideways glance before turning. An additional tactic I use if there's enough clear space is to move into side lane to block any attempt to pass me on that side.

 

''But'', you may argue, ''the motorcyclist should have seen the indication and not tried to pass''. But come on, we all should know the reality here. I don't think I need elaborate!

 

This all about the culture of 'defencive driving'. Expect the unexpected.and be ready for it. Because it's going to happen one day.

 

BTW as a motorcyclist myself this is the kind of incident that has lead me to conclude never to ride in the inside lane and to never pass a vehicle to its nearside.

''But'', you may argue, ''the motorcyclist should have seen the indication and not tried to pass''. But come on, we all should know the reality here. I don't think I need elaborate!

 

Sorry, but I need to you elaborate because I have no idea what you are talking about.

[dick dasterdly]

38 minutes ago, smotherb said:

Well, happyas, it looks like I do owe you an apology. I did not see that the bike went down. I mistakenly thought the bike stayed upright and he passenger fell off.

 

In that case, it is not the passengers' fault. 

You hadn't bothered reading either thread at all before commenting??

 

Bit suprised that you have suddenly changed your attitude, even though the same 'arguments' have been posted time and time again...

[Goldieinkathu]

Maybe it was the dog that was about to run after the cat half a mile up the road that caused the traffic ahead to slow, which then caused the man in the blue Honda who was just looking at his son who had dropped some ice cream on the floor of his car  to break  suddenly , causing the pick up behind to also stop suddenly which then left the bike to break, wobble and then the lady to fall off in to the path of the truck? Has anyone else thought of that?

Arrest all and fine them! In fact, lets hang em. Arrest their mothers too as it's their fault that they were all born.

 

[mick01827]

17 minutes ago, Goldieinkathu said:

Call it what you want. For me there was no collision involved, the driver lost control of the bike and the passenger fell into the path of a passing vehicle .I prefer to think of it at an accident but each to their own.

PS.  "Both" - did you watch the video?

No I haven't seen the  video 

[dick dasterdly]

13 minutes ago, Moonlover said:

Definitely not his fault? I would question that. We all know that motorcyclists use the left hand lane and we all know that they pass on the inside.

 

I am very wary of this when turning left and do a good mirror check and a sideways glance before turning. An additional tactic I use if there's enough clear space is to move into side lane to block any attempt to pass me on that side.

 

''But'', you may argue, ''the motorcyclist should have seen the indication and not tried to pass''. But come on, we all should know the reality here. I don't think I need elaborate!

 

This all about the culture of 'defencive driving'. Expect the unexpected.and be ready for it. Because it's going to happen one day.

 

BTW as a motorcyclist myself this is the kind of incident that has lead me to conclude never to ride in the inside lane and to never pass a vehicle to its nearside.

Just need to make the point that if a vehicle is turning left (with another lane to said driver's left) - then its down to said driver to ensure he isn't cutting across someone else!  Its not a case of the driver in the further left lane trying to "pass on the inside"!

 

Nothing to do with this topic, but I'm more than tired of 'bike drivers being blamed because they 'haven't driven defensively enough' - even when the driver of  a 4 wheeled vehicle is the one that has clearly broken the law!

[Moonlover]

16 minutes ago, Goldieinkathu said:

''But'', you may argue, ''the motorcyclist should have seen the indication and not tried to pass''. But come on, we all should know the reality here. I don't think I need elaborate!

 

Sorry, but I need to you elaborate because I have no idea what you are talking about.

Ah, sorry, I fallen into 'wrong attribution trap again! I'm actually replying to a post by jwest10 in post 58. How this happens, I do not quite know, but the TVF system attributes a post to the wrong person unless the poster initiated his own response. It is a very confusing flaw that I wish they would address. It was commented on just  a few days ago. 

[harleyclarkey]

Whoever...whatever.

 

Losing your pregnant partner in such a tragic manner....the mother of your other child.

The fact is this unfortunate man will have guilt and nightmares for the rest of his life.

 

I feel really sorry for him and offer my sincerest condolences.

[Moonlover]

2 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Just need to make the point that if a vehicle is turning left (with another lane to said driver's left) - then its down to said driver to ensure he isn't cutting across someone else!  Its not a case of the driver in the further left lane trying to "pass on the inside"!

 

Nothing to do with this topic, but I'm more than tired of 'bike drivers being blamed because they 'haven't driven defensively enough' - even when the driver of  a 4 wheeled vehicle is the one that has clearly broken the law!

Dick, if you go back and read jwest10's post at 58, then mine, you'll have a better picture of what this is about. Perhaps I should learn to string these post together better!

[dunroaming]

19 hours ago, LivinginKata said:

Well ... so much for all the TV detectives declaring the truck driver was at fault.

 

To me it was an unfortunate road accident caused by the bike driver.

 

 

Yes I agree although the truck driver has also been charged with reckless driving. In the papers in the UK today.

[richard_smith237]

11 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

Yes I agree although the truck driver has also been charged with reckless driving. In the papers in the UK today.

 

I believe its quite normal in the event of a road accident involving death that all related parties be charged. 

(first class insurance in Thailand has a 200,000 baht bail bond for this purpose). 

 

The BiB simply appear to be following protocol. The real issue will be what happens IF these charges are actually brought to light. 

It is my guess that charges will be waived and the poor man will be free to grieve the consequences of this tragic accident. 

 

[dunroaming]

2 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

I believe its quite normal in the event of a road accident involving death that all related parties be charged. 

(first class insurance in Thailand has a 200,000 baht bail bond for this purpose). 

 

The BiB simply appear to be following protocol. The real issue will be what happens IF these charges are actually brought to light. 

It is my guess that charges will be waived and the poor man will be free to grieve the consequences of this tragic accident. 

 

You may well be right.  In the report I read it said that they are still awaiting the autopsy report but I cannot see how that would alter anything.  Whatever the outcome it was a real tragedy

[stevenl]

4 hours ago, jwest10 said:

That is cheap and I know someone had to pay 3K for definitely not their fault ie indicating to go left in a car and a boy racer, as usual, comes up on the inside  and collides with the car.
Why is there insurance then and many I feel have no insurance or drivers license?

Somebody goes straight and a car decides to turn left. Car is at fault, and bike is (depending on the situation) entitled to be on the inside.

 

But this is off topic.

Edited May 18, 2017 by stevenl

[tukkytuktuk]

He wasn't drunk or speeding so why is he being charged with reckless driving? It was an accident. He could have fell into the path of the truck too but didn't. No ones to blame as accidents happen. Let it be! Danny has enough of a nightmare from this. It was his unborn child too that perished. I hope he sues for wrongful arrest.

[catman20]

6 hours ago, happyas said:

Yes you did say that, but for the wrong reason..he did not move into the path of the truck by not looking behind first.

so are you saying he looked first saw the truck then moved into the path of the truck to get killed??

[catman20]

9 hours ago, stevenl said:

Why do you think LiKs comment was directed at you?

go back and look why i posted this please.then you may understand why i posted it.

[happyas]

2 hours ago, smotherb said:

Well, happyas, it looks like I do owe you an apology. I did not see that the bike went down. I mistakenly thought the bike stayed upright and he passenger fell off.

 

In that case, it is not the passengers' fault. 

Thank you for apology.

It is a very rare thing on TV.

Most just go hide after they realise that they had made an error. 

[happyas]

19 minutes ago, catman20 said:

so are you saying he looked first saw the truck then moved into the path of the truck to get killed??

No, i most certainly am not, because we all know that he just did not move into the path of the truck  in any way, shape or form.