Not 1 student wore a helmet.

[HHTel]

but in the UK, at least, it's the motor insurance companies who pay for medical treatment following an accident.

So insurance premiums are raised to cover increased medical bills. So not wearing a seat belt or motorcycle helmet is actually quite selfish and not just a case of personal liberty.

[Pleng]

So you are saying that health care/treating traficvictims is free of charge?.

Obviously it varies from country to county - but in the UK, at least, it's the motor insurance companies who pay for medical treatment following an accident. If there is no insurance, the bill is swallowed by the NHS, but that's an altogether different 'responsibility for actions' area.

One must remember that in the UK at least, if you are breaking the law in any way at all your insurance will not pay.

Not as far as I'm aware. If the driver is breaking the law then the insurance company still has to pay out for third party damage and I'm pretty sure they have to pay for the insured's medical bills. The insurance company is then, I believe, entitled to pursue the insured to reclaim the expenses - but ot sure how often this actually happens in practice.

[Gregjam]

So what would happen if one of the students mentioned in the original post had an accident and serious injuries from coming into contact regardless of fault with a vehicle that was compliant fully with Thai law. Does not wearing a helmet relieve the vehicle driver of blame purely because the student was not wearing a helmet?