"Too long" isn't actually a criticism of the argument—it's an admission you didn't engage with it. It's always inevitable that whenever a post contains evidence, context and references, someone declares it must be AI. I first wrote about road safety in Thailand over twenty years ago, long before ChatGPT existed. If AI has learned anything about this subject, there's a reasonable chance it learned some of it from people like me who've been writing about it for decades. Road safety isn't a subject that can be explained in three sentences or reduced to "I've driven here for years." It's a multidisciplinary field involving engineering, human factors, psychology, enforcement, epidemiology, vehicle design and public policy. The problem is that many expats mistake experience for expertise. They've driven a car, witnessed behaviour they don't understand, and concluded they're authorities on Thai road safety. whereas their “experience” is in reality the accumulation of bad habits and confirmation bias. Reading something longer than a forum soundbite isn't compulsory. “Take a horse to water”?? - Complaining that someone has provided too much information is rather like standing beside a well and complaining there's too much water. You don't have to drink it, but it's a curious thing to criticise.
