Foreigner killed in Chon Buri car accident, other driver skedaddles

[gummy]

3 minutes ago, Benroon said:

Bizarre - thank god you’re not a copper. 
 

Now follow this slowly - if you’re behind a car which then puts it’s left indicator on, and you choose then to shoot up the inside of a car who has clearly INDICATED it’s intentions, rather than overtake it on the OUTSIDE which I believe is the tradition in every country on the planet, it’s the car drivers fault right ?

55555 ok 

Now you know why I put him on ignore

[Benroon]

2 hours ago, Transam said:

I think you worry too much, and listen to bar stool gossip.

The well pissed up and obviously guilty are the usual accident runaways.... 

What was I worried about and what did I listen to ? 

[gummy]

Just now, Benroon said:

What was I worried about and what did I listen to ? 

ignore is rants, another on ignore

[Benroon]

Just now, gummy said:

ignore is rants, another on ignore

But it’s my care in the community effort

[gummy]

1 minute ago, Benroon said:

But it’s my care in the community effort

I appreciate your thoughtfulness but there are people who simply can not be helped

[Benroon]

I should have added if you waited for every motorbike coming up your inside in Thailand to complete their manoeuvre before you turned, you had better take sandwiches else you’d never get anywhere !

I’m chuckling away that anyone could have pinned the blame on me for that, even her dad and uncle told her she was in the wrong and were relieved I didn’t ask them to pay for my respray! 
 

I’m deducing only a tree hugging cyclist could come to that conclusion ? 

[Fester]

6 hours ago, Stonker said:

Impossible to say, but judging by what you've written you were turning left and she was behind or inside you and you cut her up which means it was your fault, not hers, and it's hard to see how it could have been otherwise - indicating turning doesn't entitle you to turn.

From the Land Traffic Act of 1979 / 2522, which you have already metioned:

Sections 44 and 45 both clearly state that undertaking is illegal.

Motorbike at fault and guilty. Fine 500B. 

Next case.

http://thailaws.com/law/t_laws/tlaw0140_5.pdf

  

[Stonker]

3 hours ago, Benroon said:

Bizarre - thank god you’re not a copper. 
 

Now follow this slowly - if you’re behind a car which then puts it’s left indicator on, and you choose then to shoot up the inside of a car who has clearly INDICATED it’s intentions, rather than overtake it on the OUTSIDE which I believe is the tradition in every country on the planet, it’s the car drivers fault right ?

55555 ok 

Now follow this slowly, as maybe you missed where I said "impossible to say"!

 

IF she was on a bicycle, as she apparently was, and IF she was both behind and inside you, as she apparently was, then you cut her up  - INDICATING, even in caps, doesn't give you the right to turn left and cut up a cyclist who is behind you and to your left - IF she was.

IF all she did was maintain her line and speed, she had no obligation at all to overtake you on the OUTSIDE - the responsibility was yours, not hers.

3 hours ago, Benroon said:

I’m deducing only a tree hugging cyclist could come to that conclusion ? 

Aaah ..... so it's the cyclist's fault as if they hadn't been there then the accident wouldn't have happened? ... rather like farangs in Thailand?

 

FWIW, yes I cycle a fair amount (exercise, not transport) so I'm used to ignorant drivers having a blind spot.

[Stonker]

42 minutes ago, Fester said:

From the Land Traffic Act of 1979 / 2522, which you have already metioned:

Sections 44 and 45 both clearly state that undertaking is illegal.

Motorbike at fault and guilty. Fine 500B. 

Next case.

http://thailaws.com/law/t_laws/tlaw0140_5.pdf

  

If she was maintaining her line she wasn't undertaking - simply staying in the lane she was already in. IF. 

 

Edit: Section 82 of the LTA - cyclists have to stay on the left side of the road, etc, or on the hard shoulder if you need the actual law on it

 

[Benroon]

1 hour ago, Stonker said:

Now follow this slowly, as maybe you missed where I said "impossible to say"!

IF she was on a bicycle, as she apparently was, and IF she was both behind and inside you, as she apparently was, then you cut her up  - INDICATING, even in caps, doesn't give you the right to turn left and cut up a cyclist who is behind you and to your left - IF she was.

IF all she did was maintain her line and speed, she had no obligation at all to overtake you on the OUTSIDE - the responsibility was yours, not hers.

Aaah ..... so it's the cyclist's fault as if they hadn't been there then the accident wouldn't have happened? ... rather like farangs in Thailand?

FWIW, yes I cycle a fair amount (exercise, not transport) so I'm used to ignorant drivers having a blind spot.

As close as you are ever going to get to clueless !

She was on a motorbike, where did I say cyclist ?

Edited August 12, 2021 by Benroon

[Benroon]

1 hour ago, Stonker said:

If she was maintaining her line she wasn't undertaking - simply staying in the lane she was already in. IF. 

Edit: Section 82 of the LTA - cyclists have to stay on the left side of the road, etc, or on the hard shoulder if you need the actual law on it

There was no separate lane, we were in the same lane, she was BEHIND and as I slowed down to stop, she zoomed up the inside for a reason only she knows when the outside was clear, up the inside of a car indicating to pull over. I'm tempted to put all this in upper case for the hard of thinking.

If she 'maintained' her line at 150mph on the inside, is she undertaking yet ?

Stop digging chap

[Fester]

Sounds a bit iffy to me....

[Stonker]

"She was on a motorbike, where did I say cyclist?"

Well ..... ummm .....the same place where I quoted you saying "cyclist" before.

Here:

14 hours ago, Benroon said:

I'm deducing only a tree hugging cyclist could come to that conclusion ? 

That is your post, isn't it?

 

That does say "cyclist", doesn't it?

 

If she wasn't a "cyclist" (would you like that in upper case, for the hard of thinking?) it seems more than a little odd to ask if I'm a cyclist ... but ho humm, "chap" - maybe you were chuckling away so much you couldn't read what you'd written.

[Chaimai]

14 hours ago, Fester said:

From the Land Traffic Act of 1979 / 2522, which you have already metioned:

Sections 44 and 45 both clearly state that undertaking is illegal.

Motorbike at fault and guilty. Fine 500B. 

Next case.

http://thailaws.com/law/t_laws/tlaw0140_5.pdf

  

 

 

To clarify......undertaking is NOT illegal. Section 45 states the circumstances in which it is permissible:-

 

 

Section 45. No driver shall overtake other conveyance by the left
side of the overtaken conveyance, except in the following cases:
(1) the conveyance which is going to be overtaken is turning right, or
gives right turning signal;

(2) such road is divided into two or more lanes of the same direction.
The overtaking by the left side of the overtaken conveyance under (1)
or (2) may be done only when there is no other conveyance following behind.

 

ThaiDriving (2018_03_23 05_25_41 UTC).pdf

Edited August 13, 2021 by Chaimai

[Benroon]

4 hours ago, Stonker said:

"She was on a motorbike, where did I say cyclist?"

Well ..... ummm .....the same place where I quoted you saying "cyclist" before.

Here:

That is your post, isn't it?

That does say "cyclist", doesn't it?

If she wasn't a "cyclist" (would you like that in upper case, for the hard of thinking?) it seems more than a little odd to ask if I'm a cyclist ... but ho humm, "chap" - maybe you were chuckling away so much you couldn't read what you'd written.

Yes that was my post - you've got something right but you seriously can't deduce I was talking about you ? Really ? - its not too hard to follow is it? Or are you just clutching at straws ? So, again, where did I say the girl who came up my inside was a cyclist ? 

However its not odd at all to ask if YOU'RE a cyclist as they tend to be venomously anti motorist - and given your bizarre and completely incorrect take on the event it was a natural conclusion.

So shall we leave it now ? as this is like shooting fish in a barrel ! But I've got a feeling you're the type that needs to have the last word .......

[Fester]

3 hours ago, Chaimai said:

To clarify......undertaking is NOT illegal. Section 45 states the circumstances in which it is permissible:-

Section 45. No driver shall overtake other conveyance by the left
side of the overtaken conveyance, except in the following cases:
(1) the conveyance which is going to be overtaken is turning right, or
gives right turning signal;

(2) such road is divided into two or more lanes of the same direction.
The overtaking by the left side of the overtaken conveyance under (1)
or (2) may be done only when there is no other conveyance following behind.

ThaiDriving (2018_03_23 05_25_41 UTC).pdf 256.54 kB · 0 downloads

To clarify, these "cases" do not apply in this instance, the vehicle was on the left and signalling left to pull over or turn. Therefore the undertake was illegal. Extra fine 500B. Next.

Edited August 13, 2021 by Fester

[Benroon]

3 hours ago, Chaimai said:

To clarify......undertaking is NOT illegal. Section 45 states the circumstances in which it is permissible:-

Section 45. No driver shall overtake other conveyance by the left
side of the overtaken conveyance, except in the following cases:
(1) the conveyance which is going to be overtaken is turning right, or
gives right turning signal;

(2) such road is divided into two or more lanes of the same direction.
The overtaking by the left side of the overtaken conveyance under (1)
or (2) may be done only when there is no other conveyance following behind.

ThaiDriving (2018_03_23 05_25_41 UTC).pdf 256.54 kB · 0 downloads

Wow so nothing about 'maintaining' blah blah blah

So Excellent - I was indicating LEFT -  We got there in the end.

Case dismissed by Judge Fester

New pair of jeans awarded as an out of court settlement

Edited August 13, 2021 by Benroon

[Fester]

50 minutes ago, Benroon said:

Wow so nothing about 'maintaining' blah blah blah

So Excellent - I was indicating LEFT -  We got there in the end.

Case dismissed by Judge Fester

New pair of jeans awarded as an out of court settlement

 

[Chaimai]

1 hour ago, Fester said:

To clarify, these "cases" do not apply in this instance, the vehicle was on the left and signalling left to pull over or turn. Therefore the undertake was illegal. Extra fine 500B. Next.

Just pointing out that your statement was incorrect.

[Fester]

5 hours ago, Chaimai said:

Just pointing out that your statement was incorrect.

Is there some kind of annoying colonial activity in your hair?

Edited August 13, 2021 by Fester

[Chaimai]

19 minutes ago, Fester said:

Is there some kind of annoying colonial activity in your hair?

 

No....I just have this habit of correcting errors.

 

Still, now you have learned something.

[Stonker]

6 hours ago, Fester said:

To clarify, these "cases" do not apply in this instance, the vehicle was on the left and signalling left to pull over or turn. Therefore the undertake was illegal. Extra fine 500B. Next.

Sorry, but if it was a cyclist as I had considereda possibility given @Benroom's comment, they do, 100%.

However much a few ill-informed foreigners think that  what they "believe is the tradition in every country on the planet" so they assume Western highway codes apply in Thailand, they don't.

 

Bicycles do NOT have the same rights as other vehicles on the roads in Thailand - they're not entitled to take up a lane, overtake on the right, etc, etc - they're specifically not allowed to under Section 82 of the LTA.

They're restricted to the left side of the road only, including the hard shoulder.

[Stonker]

7 hours ago, Benroon said:

Yes that was my post - you've got something right but you seriously can't deduce I was talking about you ? Really ? - its not too hard to follow is it? Or are you just clutching at straws ? So, again, where did I say the girl who came up my inside was a cyclist ? 

However its not odd at all to ask if YOU'RE a cyclist as they tend to be venomously anti motorist - and given your bizarre and completely incorrect take on the event it was a natural conclusion.

So shall we leave it now ? as this is like shooting fish in a barrel ! But I've got a feeling you're the type that needs to have the last word .......

@Benroon, if you're too dense to realise that saying the accident involved a 14 year old girl and asking if I'm a "tree hugging cyclist" suggests a possibility that she was riding a bicycle, then I can't be bothered to explain the blindingly obvious to you.

 

Byeee .....

[Fester]

7 minutes ago, Chaimai said:

No....I just have this habit of correcting errors.

Still, now you have learned something.

I just call it nit-picking. 

[Fester]

8 minutes ago, Stonker said:

Sorry, but if it was a cyclist as I had considereda possibility given @Benroom's comment, they do, 100%.

However much a few ill-informed foreigners think that  what they "believe is the tradition in every country on the planet" so they assume Western highway codes apply in Thailand, they don't.

Bicycles do NOT have the same rights as other vehicles on the roads in Thailand - they're not entitled to take up a lane, overtake on the right, etc, etc - they're specifically not allowed to under Section 82 of the LTA.

They're restricted to the left side of the road only, including the hard shoulder.

With so many restrictions, then maybe some more due care and attention might avoid a repeat incident.