Australian who fled accident scene and was chased by police hits and kills woman 50 in Udon

[Laab Muu]

It's clear from the CCTV footage that the motorcycle was in wrong.

 

FACTS;

 

*Motorcycle on wrong side of road.

*Three up on a motorcycle designed for a maximum of 2.

*Non of them wearing helmets.

*2 dead and 1 critical.

*No lessons will be learned.

 

Australian will get off with fine and suspended sentence, and get on with life.

[plachon]

On 6/21/2017 at 8:40 AM, Myshkin said:

People with mental illness should not be allowed to drive in any country in the world.

That would probably mean about half the world's  drivers would be taken off the roads. Good for easing traffic jams, but perhaps not so good for the economy or the mental health of perfectly capable drivers banned from driving. You clearly, like many on this thread, have little idea of the range of mental illnesses and the proportion of a population that suffer from them.

[BEVUP]

5 hours ago, Laab Muu said:

It's clear from the CCTV footage that the motorcycle was in wrong.

 

FACTS;

 

*Motorcycle on wrong side of road.

*Three up on a motorcycle designed for a maximum of 2.

*Non of them wearing helmets.

*2 dead and 1 critical.

*No lessons will be learned.

 

Australian will get off with fine and suspended sentence, and get on with life.

He was in the wrong in the sense he had committed the first offence so if the women was unlicensed & all wearing no helmets is not the problem but if someone out right hit them in the first place then that would count 

People keep saying she was on the wrong side of the road so lets say this - "Why did the chicken cross the road "

[canuckamuck]

Both of them did enough to cause the accident on their own.  She was basically stationary in the oncoming lane on a bend. He was speeding. Neither of them were looking where they needed to be looking.

But she has paid the ultimate price, and he is likely in serious trouble. So I don't think it matters if we can find the appropriate percentage of blame here. 

[robblok]

47 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Both of them did enough to cause the accident on their own.  She was basically stationary in the oncoming lane on a bend. He was speeding. Neither of them were looking where they needed to be looking.

But she has paid the ultimate price, and he is likely in serious trouble. So I don't think it matters if we can find the appropriate percentage of blame here. 

Right both were in the wrong here, she really crossed at a stupid place.. but in her defense it looks like the road made her do it. I mean the design of the road she is coming from an other road and wants to be on the correct side she has to cross... had they connected the 2 roads somewhere else where things were more clear things would be better. Maybe a barrier should have been placed in the middle there to prevent them from crossing at that spot. 

[Artisi]

15 minutes ago, robblok said:

Right both were in the wrong here, she really crossed at a stupid place.. but in her defense it looks like the road made her do it. I mean the design of the road she is coming from an other road and wants to be on the correct side she has to cross... had they connected the 2 roads somewhere else where things were more clear things would be better. Maybe a barrier should have been placed in the middle there to prevent them from crossing at that spot. 

"prevent them from crossing" -  maybe, but bear in mind - Thais will always take the shortest route between A & B irrespective of barriers, ditches, signs, law, or common sense - usually at their own peril.

As I said earlier, an accident waiting to happen. 

[robblok]

Just now, Artisi said:

"prevent them from crossing" -  maybe, but bear in mind - Thais will always take the shortest route between A & B irrespective of barriers, ditches, signs, law, or common sense - usually at their own peril.

As I said earlier, an accident waiting to happen. 

Yes that road is badly connected..and your right..but a barrier would make them cross somewhere else .. i mean a lane divider that cant be crossed.

[giddyup]

3 minutes ago, robblok said:

Yes that road is badly connected..and your right..but a barrier would make them cross somewhere else .. i mean a lane divider that cant be crossed.

It would be a bit like plugging leaks in a dam, as soon as you block one leak another one breaks out. Unfortunately you can't force common sense on people.

[Artisi]

42 minutes ago, robblok said:

Yes that road is badly connected..and your right..but a barrier would make them cross somewhere else .. i mean a lane divider that cant be crossed.

I knew what was meant, however - have you ever noticed the missing panels or the concrete dividers with a hole busted through for the short-cut? 

[namoi]

I am wondering what his tv handle is and I invite him to give his version of the sad event
Rip to the innocent victims

[Eloquent pilgrim]

10 hours ago, Father Fintan Stack said:

She was on the wrong side of the ***** road, driving into oncoming traffic, at the lower side of a blind bend.

 

Would a Thai have been able to stop, knowing the reckless way they drive their pick-ups?

 

2/3 seconds to stop? Do you have any idea of braking distances and reaction times required to stop from even 30kms/h?

 

Was she wearing a helmet? Three on the scooter, overloaded and causing a bit of a wobble, was she in full control?

 

No, it is all the farang's fault because he's a nasty mentalist.

Quote

Yes, I do have some idea; stopping distance from 30 KPH is circa 10 meters, 5 for reaction and 5 for braking. A good alert driver in a good car with ABS on a dry surface can possibly reduce this by 20% …. these figures are of course, to a complete standstill. 

 

I am not an expert and I do not have the specialist software required to analyse speeds and distances on this video, but it would appear obvious that he is driving too fast (the woman victim was found 20 meters / 65 feet away) and more importantly, does not take any evasive action; as you know, when a car brakes, the inertia of the body weight causes the whole body of the car to compress onto the suspension with the nose of the car dipping. When this happens it is clearly visible, and it is clear that he did not brake or swerve in avoidance.

 

I am not sure why anyone refers to this as a blind bend, you can see both the scooter and his pick up at an early stage of the video, even from the distance it was filmed.

 

Also worth remembering that this man had just been involved in 2 collisions which he refused to stop for, which surely brings his fitness to be driving into question. I am not and have not, tried to absolve her of any responsibility, but maybe you could remove your “defend farang’s at all costs” blinkers for a minute and accept that he also bears a huge amount of responsibility and blame for this tragedy  …… my condolences once again to the victim’s family

 

[LannaGuy]

19 hours ago, Artisi said:

did he try to flee the scene, it all happened so quickly he wouldn't to even think - possibly he was trying to the car off the road not knowing there was a bike underneath.

I'm not defending him in anyway but sh1t happens and people sitting on their keyboards viewing an accident in hindsight unfolding makes it so easy to be the expert. This unfortunate event was an accident just waiting to happen - heading off into oncoming traffic is looking for trouble - also I wouldn't be surprised if she actually slowed down as there was a bike in her path. 

 

No idea but the reporting is that he had an accident and did not stop then killed two people (and maybe still did not stop). What do we know?  1:  two are dead  2:  he did not stop at first accident  3: he's in deep, deep s**t

[balo]

He deserve some jail time. Let's hope he's not rich and can bribe someone. 

[Eloquent pilgrim]

13 hours ago, oldlakey said:

He did not stop though did he 

Yes the blame is all his for the fleeing

That blame cannot be loaded on to the second incident in any shape or form it does not apply

You and others must try to remove this from your thinking it simply has no bearing on these subsequent events

 

I understand the point you are trying to make, but in this particular case I must disagree. This is not a matter of “if he hadn't got up in the morning” or “if he had stopped for a coffee” this wouldn't have happened. Just prior to this tragedy he had been involved in two traffic collisions in a short space of time and had refused to stop for either of them; anyone that does that is not fit to be driving. He fled the scene and obviously in fleeing, he was driving far too fast, because that is the point of fleeing (not to be caught) …….. so there is unquestionably a direct correlation between the prior collisions and this terrible accident. 

 

 

It is obvious that he was driving far too fast (the woman victim was found 20 meters - 65 feet away - and look at the damage a small motorcycle caused to his vehicle) and, this is important, he does not take any evasive action; as you know, when a car brakes, the inertia of the body weight causes the whole body of the car to compress onto the suspension with the nose of the car dipping. When this happens it is clearly visible, and it is clear that he did not brake or swerve in avoidance ...... my condolences once again to the victim's family ??

Edited June 24, 2017 by Eloquent pilgrim

[bannork]

I wonder if we will get to hear about the blood tests for alcohol because the word on the streets in Ban Dung is he was twice over the legal limit after a bust up with his girlfriend. True or just a rumour- the test should answer that.

[Blinky62]

Right both were in the wrong here, she really crossed at a stupid place.. but in her defense it looks like the road made her do it. I mean the design of the road she is coming from an other road and wants to be on the correct side she has to cross... had they connected the 2 roads somewhere else where things were more clear things would be better. Maybe a barrier should have been placed in the middle there to prevent them from crossing at that spot. 

Ha !!! It was the roads fault . All fixed .


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[onthesoi]

7 hours ago, robblok said:

Right both were in the wrong here, she really crossed at a stupid place.. but in her defense it looks like the road made her do it. I mean the design of the road she is coming from an other road and wants to be on the correct side she has to cross... had they connected the 2 roads somewhere else where things were more clear things would be better. Maybe a barrier should have been placed in the middle there to prevent them from crossing at that spot. 

 

How would any of that prevent the truck from fleeing the police and speeding in a reckless manner?

 

There is absolutely nothing in the video to suggest that crossing at that spot was dangerous.....however, crossing any road is dangerous when people are speeding. 

 

No amount of road design will make a speeding driver safe, unless we're talking about speed bumps every 10 metres.

 

-----

Have you forgotten the reason why the pickup was fleeing the police was because he had already caused another accident further down the road...or was this lady to blame for that also?

Edited June 24, 2017 by onthesoi

[catman20]

4 hours ago, balo said:

He deserve some jail time. Let's hope he's not rich and can bribe someone. 

Better for the family if he his rich. 

[JustNo]

7 hours ago, bannork said:

I wonder if we will get to hear about the blood tests for alcohol because the word on the streets in Ban Dung is he was twice over the legal limit after a bust up with his girlfriend. True or just a rumour- the test should answer that.

Depends on his money. Do you or anybody else for that matter recall that Scouser who killed 2 Thai guys on a bike due to hitting them in his car? I think it was Phuket.. He had been drinking all Afternoon and after the initial arrest what have we heard about that? Nothing. It has been a fair few months already and nothing there. 

[Laab Muu]

4 hours ago, onthesoi said:

 

 

There is absolutely nothing in the video to suggest that crossing at that spot was dangerous

You must have missed the part that shows a woman with 2 kids on board a motorcycle driving across the flow of traffic without due care and attention.

[oldlakey]

9 hours ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

 

I understand the point you are trying to make, but in this particular case I must disagree. This is not a matter of “if he hadn't got up in the morning” or “if he had stopped for a coffee” this wouldn't have happened. Just prior to this tragedy he had been involved in two traffic collisions in a short space of time and had refused to stop for either of them; anyone that does that is not fit to be driving. He fled the scene and obviously in fleeing, he was driving far too fast, because that is the point of fleeing (not to be caught) …….. so there is unquestionably a direct correlation between the prior collisions and this terrible accident. 

 

 

It is obvious that he was driving far too fast (the woman victim was found 20 meters - 65 feet away - and look at the damage a small motorcycle caused to his vehicle) and, this is important, he does not take any evasive action; as you know, when a car brakes, the inertia of the body weight causes the whole body of the car to compress onto the suspension with the nose of the car dipping. When this happens it is clearly visible, and it is clear that he did not brake or swerve in avoidance ...... my condolences once again to the victim's family ??

Look at the CCTV, look to see who is where, both vehicles are in the same LANE a bit of a clue there dont you know

It does not matter what speed the Aussie was doing if the motorcyclist had not put the three of them in harms way by attempting her illegal maneuver there would / could not have been a collision

The pickup would have just passed by

Totally her fault no question in my mind, I would bet she would have been doing this for quite some time I am at a loss to understand how she made such a complete hash of it on this occasion

I used the point of not getting out of bed as an example where do you stop with saying IF, nothing more

The people who say IF he had stopped at the scene of the first accident are simply stating the obvious , of course the second accident COULD not happen because he was still at the scene of the FIRST accident

It has no relevance because he did not STOP did he, he carried on to the scene of the second accident

Its infantile to try and introduce something that did not happen into such a serious turn of events, you must keep to what actually DID happen minus the IF IF IF for christs sake

I am not defending  any of the actions of the Aussie,  whatever it looks like or whatever anybody thinks

Before the appearance  of the CCTV footage this thread was very polarized, the CCTV has embarrassed several people one especially who finds it difficult to withdraw when in the wrong but thats life

The Aussie has got some answering to do no doubt, but it does not change fault in this case in my mind

I have given my views and as far as I am concerned this for me is now history as I am not directly involved

 

[Ron19]

One flame post has been removed.

[Artisi]

6 hours ago, oldlakey said:

Look at the CCTV, look to see who is where, both vehicles are in the same LANE a bit of a clue there dont you know

It does not matter what speed the Aussie was doing if the motorcyclist had not put the three of them in harms way by attempting her illegal maneuver there would / could not have been a collision

The pickup would have just passed by

Totally her fault no question in my mind, I would bet she would have been doing this for quite some time I am at a loss to understand how she made such a complete hash of it on this occasion

I used the point of not getting out of bed as an example where do you stop with saying IF, nothing more

The people who say IF he had stopped at the scene of the first accident are simply stating the obvious , of course the second accident COULD not happen because he was still at the scene of the FIRST accident

It has no relevance because he did not STOP did he, he carried on to the scene of the second accident

Its infantile to try and introduce something that did not happen into such a serious turn of events, you must keep to what actually DID happen minus the IF IF IF for christs sake

I am not defending  any of the actions of the Aussie,  whatever it looks like or whatever anybody thinks

Before the appearance  of the CCTV footage this thread was very polarized, the CCTV has embarrassed several people one especially who finds it difficult to withdraw when in the wrong but thats life

The Aussie has got some answering to do no doubt, but it does not change fault in this case in my mind

I have given my views and as far as I am concerned this for me is now history as I am not directly involved

 

To those hung up on if if if, when should the "but if" start?

How about, IF the parents of the Aussie guy and the parents of Thai lady hadn't got it all together many years back there wouldn't be anything to discuss now - -  just goes to show the stupidity of "but if he", "but if she". 

 

[Eloquent pilgrim]

26 minutes ago, Artisi said:

To those hung up on if if if, when should the "but if" start?

How about, IF the parents of the Aussie guy and the parents of Thai lady hadn't got it all together many years back there wouldn't be anything to discuss now - -  just goes to show the stupidity of "but if he", "but if she". 

 

Pointless and extremely childish comment 

[Eloquent pilgrim]

8 hours ago, oldlakey said:

Look at the CCTV, look to see who is where, both vehicles are in the same LANE a bit of a clue there dont you know

It does not matter what speed the Aussie was doing if the motorcyclist had not put the three of them in harms way by attempting her illegal maneuver there would / could not have been a collision

The pickup would have just passed by

Totally her fault no question in my mind, I would bet she would have been doing this for quite some time I am at a loss to understand how she made such a complete hash of it on this occasion

I used the point of not getting out of bed as an example where do you stop with saying IF, nothing more

The people who say IF he had stopped at the scene of the first accident are simply stating the obvious , of course the second accident COULD not happen because he was still at the scene of the FIRST accident

It has no relevance because he did not STOP did he, he carried on to the scene of the second accident

Its infantile to try and introduce something that did not happen into such a serious turn of events, you must keep to what actually DID happen minus the IF IF IF for christs sake

I am not defending  any of the actions of the Aussie,  whatever it looks like or whatever anybody thinks

Before the appearance  of the CCTV footage this thread was very polarized, the CCTV has embarrassed several people one especially who finds it difficult to withdraw when in the wrong but thats life

The Aussie has got some answering to do no doubt, but it does not change fault in this case in my mind

I have given my views and as far as I am concerned this for me is now history as I am not directly involved

 

I do not, and have not, tried to absolve the woman of her share of blame and responsibility, but when you say  “It does not matter what speed the Aussie was doing” ….. you lose any credibility.

 

Excessive damage to the pick up, and the woman was catapulted 20 meters through the air, and you have the temerity to say that it does not matter how fast he was driving ……… hmmmm

[JustNo]

8 hours ago, oldlakey said:

Look at the CCTV, look to see who is where, both vehicles are in the same LANE a bit of a clue there dont you know

It does not matter what speed the Aussie was doing if the motorcyclist had not put the three of them in harms way by attempting her illegal maneuver there would / could not have been a collision

The pickup would have just passed by

Totally her fault no question in my mind, I would bet she would have been doing this for quite some time I am at a loss to understand how she made such a complete hash of it on this occasion

I used the point of not getting out of bed as an example where do you stop with saying IF, nothing more

The people who say IF he had stopped at the scene of the first accident are simply stating the obvious , of course the second accident COULD not happen because he was still at the scene of the FIRST accident

It has no relevance because he did not STOP did he, he carried on to the scene of the second accident

Its infantile to try and introduce something that did not happen into such a serious turn of events, you must keep to what actually DID happen minus the IF IF IF for christs sake

I am not defending  any of the actions of the Aussie,  whatever it looks like or whatever anybody thinks

Before the appearance  of the CCTV footage this thread was very polarized, the CCTV has embarrassed several people one especially who finds it difficult to withdraw when in the wrong but thats life

The Aussie has got some answering to do no doubt, but it does not change fault in this case in my mind

I have given my views and as far as I am concerned this for me is now history as I am not directly involved

 

It's very simple chum, was the Aussi guy breaking the law? Yes he was. Whilst he was breaking the law did he cause some people to die? Yes he did. Did these people die directly because of the fact he was breaking the law? Yes they did. 

Edited June 25, 2017 by JustNo

[anto]

2 hours ago, Artisi said:

To those hung up on if if if, when should the "but if" start?

How about, IF the parents of the Aussie guy and the parents of Thai lady hadn't got it all together many years back there wouldn't be anything to discuss now - -  just goes to show the stupidity of "but if he", "but if she". 

 

..and if he just had one less drink ???...be still drunk but a different time line .

[giddyup]

1 minute ago, anto said:

..and if he just had one less drink ???...be still drunk but a different time line .

Has it been confirmed he was drunk or just more conjecture?

[robblok]

15 hours ago, onthesoi said:

 

How would any of that prevent the truck from fleeing the police and speeding in a reckless manner?

 

There is absolutely nothing in the video to suggest that crossing at that spot was dangerous.....however, crossing any road is dangerous when people are speeding. 

 

No amount of road design will make a speeding driver safe, unless we're talking about speed bumps every 10 metres.

 

-----

Have you forgotten the reason why the pickup was fleeing the police was because he had already caused another accident further down the road...or was this lady to blame for that also?

Nope.. I blame the people who build the roads.. You say not a dangerous place to cross.. i say dangerous.. she crossed in a bend. The road she was coming from merged with the other road on that spot. A good divider in the road might have forced her to cross at a more visible. 

 

It did indeed looks like the truck was speeding however I can't be sure.. the more he speedd the more he is at fault. However for crossing the road you should find a visible place and check oncoming traffic. 

Edited June 25, 2017 by robblok

[Eloquent pilgrim]

14 minutes ago, giddyup said:

Has it been confirmed he was drunk or just more conjecture?

There are reports on an Udon Thani news forum and also posts on Facebook that he said he has been taking the prescription drug Lorazepam, and other reports that he had also been drinking (alcohol) …….. these reports appear to be unsubstantiated at the moment, so only speculation and conjecture