You be the Judge (Jury and Executioner)

[giddyup]

12 minutes ago, Foozool said:

He hit her by front bumper.

If she hit his car corner or the side of the car, she could be somehow at fault. 

Of course she is at fault, if not 100%, at least 80%. No lights and wrong side of road, it's a slam dunk. Before you continue to argue your case pointlessly, have a look at the Thai road rules.

Edited May 21, 2017 by giddyup

[transam]

45 minutes ago, giddyup said:

Yes, I can also see streetlights, lights from the OP's vehicle and headlights of passing vehicles, what does that tell you? And it wasn't dusk, it was dawn.

Sorry dawn,  so you could see her in the vid...Case closed....

[pgrahmm]

Just a simple question that might bring some clarity into this discussion......

 

Does the name Crossy by any chance have anything to do with your eyes ?

Edited May 21, 2017 by pgrahmm

[timendres]

You are really guilty of only one thing: owning and driving a vehicle in Thailand.

I miss driving sometimes, but I will never own or drive a vehicle in this country.

The risk is far too great. In the long run, I believe it is cheaper just to hire a driver.

I understand there are some for whom not driving is just too impractical, and for them I truly sympathize.

[IAMHERE]

Your fault because you were stopped, apparent to her that you had stopped so she could pass. I'm not sure their is a right or wrong side of road for a bicycle in Thailand. How much money is involved? I'd think it better to pay but do not admit guilt, just wai.

[JungleBiker]

50:50

She was riding on the wrong side of the road.

You didn't look left to check all was clear. 

[NanLaew]

2 hours ago, CMBob said:

You get a couple of karma points for that.

Your karma just ran over my dogma.

[Foozool]

1 hour ago, giddyup said:

Of course she is at fault, if not 100%, at least 80%. No lights and wrong side of road, it's a slam dunk. Before you continue to argue your case pointlessly, have a look at the Thai road rules.

555

Thai road rules ? 555

for bycicle !!!!  

I don't know where you people live at, but Thai law supports poor people no matter they are at fault or not. 

And that Mr driver better look at both sides at time of take off ,

I really don't care what kind of shit he could get involve with, but he better think twice before any action. 

And if this is what you think, you will be in deep shit sometime in future. 

[al007]

2 hours ago, giddyup said:

A bicycle with no lights, which by law she is required to have.

 

Surely if you have been here a little while you know there are no laws in thailand, unless of course you upset a moderator on TV

[giddyup]

52 minutes ago, Foozool said:

555

Thai road rules ? 555

for bycicle !!!!  

I don't know where you people live at, but Thai law supports poor people no matter they are at fault or not. 

And that Mr driver better look at both sides at time of take off ,

I really don't care what kind of shit he could get involve with, but he better think twice before any action. 

And if this is what you think, you will be in deep shit sometime in future. 

Yes, rules for a bicycle, same as in any western country. If you don't know that, pointless carrying on a discussion.

[giddyup]

50 minutes ago, al007 said:

 

Surely if you have been here a little while you know there are no laws in thailand, unless of course you upset a moderator on TV

Of course there are laws, whether they are enforced or adhered to is a different matter.

[lucjoker]

No clear view when you leave your property.

Clear away some plants and you will have a clear view and others 

will see your car more early. The bicycle could not see your car until you 

hit her.Very dangerous  ,before you can see anything,you have to move too far out.

She is very smart to drive (also walk)on that side ,she can see the trafic come.

she could not see trough the bushes and spot your car though ,unless she has an

x-ray ...............

Only my opinion. 

[melvinmelvin]

4 minutes ago, lucjoker said:

No clear view when you leave your property.

Clear away some plants and you will have a clear view and others 

will see your car more early. The bicycle could not see your car until you 

hit her.Very dangerous  ,before you can see anything,you have to move too far out.

She is very smart to drive (also walk)on that side ,she can see the trafic come.

she could not see trough the bushes and spot your car though ,unless she has an

x-ray ...............

Only my opinion. 

 

She is smart to drive on the wrong side of the road? (and without light?)

 

When living in LoS it is perhaps adviceable to adjust to Thai custom, but to call it smart to drive on the wrong side of the road is overdoing it.

 

[MW72]

I call 50-50. You for not seeing her. Her for being on the wrong side of the road with no lights. It's really 80-20 against her.

[Goldieinkathu]

3 hours ago, Foozool said:

555

Thai road rules ? 555

for bycicle !!!!  

I don't know where you people live at, but Thai law supports poor people no matter they are at fault or not. 

And that Mr driver better look at both sides at time of take off ,

I really don't care what kind of shit he could get involve with, but he better think twice before any action. 

And if this is what you think, you will be in deep shit sometime in future. 

Another urban myth.

I've had two accidents that were not my fault, both involving "poor people" ( whatever that means) and on both occasions they had to pay for my car.

This business of "the farang is always wrong" is simply not true.

[ben2talk]

 
She is smart to drive on the wrong side of the road? (and without light?)
 
When living in LoS it is perhaps adviceable to adjust to Thai custom, but to call it smart to drive on the wrong side of the road is overdoing it.
 

It is actually a very good plan, as a pedestrian or cyclist, to face oncoming traffic.

It is more difficult to see traffic coming up behind you.

Obviously, if this is a deliberate plan you will not ride into a car which is coming out in front of you.

She is doing something which I do whenever I filled up with petrol near to mega, I double back, and ride along the side of the road against the traffic.

The difference, even though I am on a scooter (but would do the same on a zx10), I behave like a pedestrian when coming to junctions, especially when cars are emerging - it is obvious that they probably will not look where they are going, they will be looking for traffic on the road.

I put the blame 100% on her, but then I am not the law here. I enjoyed two years under the courts, awaiting my case to come up, when I stopped and had somebody run into me and fall down and broke her hip!

So come on, OP, what is the current state of affairs?




Sent from my nose.

[terminatorchiangmai]

She drives on the wrong side of the road , so the least she could do was to make sure you have seen her before she passes your car.

To many people think you have 4 eyes here. 

When you are looking at busy traffic on your right there will always be an brainless persons coming or passing on your left side.

It was her fault but you are to blame.

 

[ben2talk]

13 hours ago, Crossy said:

 

Not guilty, the video is complete and unedited, soundtrack is what I happened to be listening to (BBC Radio 2).

 

It was nice how the villagers rallied to help the lady, chairs etc materialized and she got a ride to the hospital.

 

Bike is being fixed on my insurance, I'm sure she will get some compensation too, for which I will pay with increased premiums.

Interesting how it all becomes a big official event very quickly. If it were me, I'd be wanting to get on my way - so she needed treatment at the hospital? Fixing the bike would have cost you more than 500 baht?

 

If your insurance is paying, then they obviously decided that you're at fault. I find this now a rather unpleasant turn of events - an archaic system that means pedestrians and cyclists are never wrong, never need their eyesight testing.

 

I'm also pretty confident that they didn't breathalyse you. This is interesting as another behaviour which reinforces the attitude that 'it's ok to have a drink, don't worry - they don't care'.

[Stuart21]

On 2017-5-18 at 6:11 PM, pgrahmm said:

She's got the right of way unimpeded.....

You didn't really do anything textbook wrong....

Unfortunate timing more than anything else....

"She's got the right of way unimpeded....."

 

She is ghost riding - she is in the wrong.

[ben2talk]

15 hours ago, Crossy said:

I'm sure she will get some compensation too, for which I will pay with increased premiums.

'I'm sure' translates to 'I'm making a wild guess as I don't have a clue' right?

 

I don't think insurance pays compensation... though I don't have so much experience with car insurance problems. I think that would entail a separate negotiation... My insurance paid hospital and medical fees up to a point, and vehicle repairs.

 

There are very separate processes for damage repairs, criminal case (if you actually did do something wrong, the police might put you in court for a fine of a few thousand for negligence or something...), and the civil case - whereby you might be expected to give her a month or two salary compensation.

 

Take it easy, but don't be surprised. Lawyers were actually telling me it's actually normal that after I settle with her and pay her medical bills that she could then claim again through the courts in a civil action effectively making me pay twice... that wasn't the case, but you can't put too much faith in anything you hear before it happens - from any sources!

[Baerboxer]

On 5/18/2017 at 5:45 PM, giddyup said:

I suppose we're expected to have eyes in the back of our heads as well? Is the falang ever in the right?

 

That's what your review and side mirrors are for. 

[Baerboxer]

1 hour ago, Stuart21 said:

"She's got the right of way unimpeded....."

 

She is ghost riding - she is in the wrong.

 

Nope. Doesn't matter that she was, like a lot of cyclists and here motor cyclists, riding on the wrong side of the road. The car/truck driver must check before proceeding. Transam posted earlier the old " look left, right and left again before proceeding" mantra.

 

Had she been a pedestrian briskly walking then, based on the dashcam, I believe Mr. Crossy, would still have hit her. He doesn't appear to make a final left check before proceeding. 

 

The person who hits is responsible - must be observant, in full control, driving at suitable speed for conditions etc etc etc. 

 

Not always fair perhaps like when people pull out or cut across but the best you can hope for in such circumstances is a bit of mitigation. Police friends here tell me if a car/truck hits a bike, motor or pedal then the car/truck is always wrong. That's their mindset and hard to convince them otherwise.

[giddyup]

7 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Nope. Doesn't matter that she was, like a lot of cyclists and here motor cyclists, riding on the wrong side of the road. The car/truck driver must check before proceeding. Transam posted earlier the old " look left, right and left again before proceeding" mantra.

 

Had she been a pedestrian briskly walking then, based on the dashcam, I believe Mr. Crossy, would still have hit her. He doesn't appear to make a final left check before proceeding. 

 

The person who hits is responsible - must be observant, in full control, driving at suitable speed for conditions etc etc etc. 

 

Not always fair perhaps like when people pull out or cut across but the best you can hope for in such circumstances is a bit of mitigation. Police friends here tell me if a car/truck hits a bike, motor or pedal then the car/truck is always wrong. That's their mindset and hard to convince them otherwise.

Unlike a pedestrian, cyclists are required to have a light on their bike and ride on the correct side of the road.

[Baerboxer]

Sorry Mr. Crossy but it was your fault.

 

Had she been walking briskly, based on the dashcam evidence, I believe you would still have hit her as you moved off. 

 

As you left your mansion (nice pad mate) to the sound of a rock'n roll classic blaring on the radio, did you look left, right and left again before moving off? The operative word being before.

 

Doesn't matter she was on a cycle, and maybe came from a direction you didn't expect. As the vehicle driver, you are responsible for ensuring your vehicle is operated safely, with due care and attention at all times.

 

In the UK someone reversed his car out of his drive and hit my son and his bike. He came round the house and said that as my son was cycling on the pavement we should pay for the damage to his car. I told him he should drive more carefully and that he was lucky my son wasn't seriously injured. He complained to the police. A constable visited and I explained the circumstances and we went to have a look. The constable warned the motorist he would report all the details and the police would consider any actions to be brought. He wasn't prosecuted but he was sent a letter by the police warning him about always being fully in control of his car and reversing out of his drive at a suitable sensible speed.

 

 

[Baerboxer]

5 minutes ago, giddyup said:

Unlike a pedestrian, cyclists are required to have a light on their bike and ride on the correct side of the road.

 

Are they? And can you provide the appropriate Thai law where that is referenced please?

[giddyup]

4 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Are they? And can you provide the appropriate Thai law where that is referenced please?

It's mentioned in the previous comments somewhere, suggest you look for it.  section 79-84 in thai highway code

Edited May 22, 2017 by giddyup

[Baerboxer]

16 hours ago, CMBob said:

You ask about fault?  Well, sitting as the requested judge and jury, the only convincing conclusion I reach is that you're definitely guilty of poor film editing....hehe.  Other than that, legally it's likely a split verdict.  In the west, you'd be cleared as she's riding on the wrong side of the road and without a light; however, in Thailand [given you are driving the expensive (and, more importantly, insured) vehicle], you or your insurance company pay whatever is reasonably necessary.  Nice to see, though, that you and wifey kindly attended to the old dear on the bicycle.  You get a couple of karma points for that.

 

Sorry, disagree. He wouldn't be cleared at all in the UK.

[ben2talk]

5 minutes ago, giddyup said:

Unlike a pedestrian, cyclists are required to have a light on their bike and ride on the correct side of the road.

It's irrelevant. Cyclists and Pedestrians are the same thing - they can't be wrong UNLESS you're on a highway.

[transam]

Where I live the cyclists have just about got tyres, let alone lights...

[Foozool]

10 hours ago, Goldieinkathu said:

Another urban myth.

I've had two accidents that were not my fault, both involving "poor people" ( whatever that means) and on both occasions they had to pay for my car.

This business of "the farang is always wrong" is simply not true.

Well, I don't know about your accidents. 

My opinion was about op case particularly. Not other cases.