Motorcycle Rider Faces Drug Charges in Bangkok Train Crash Case
A motorcycle taxi rider charged in a Bangkok train crash case says he was initially treated as a victim but later unexpectedly named as a defendant, including on drug possession charges he denies, threatening his employment prospects.
At 10:30 a.m. on August 14, a 31-year-old motorcycle taxi rider named Aman (surname withheld) filed a complaint seeking justice with Ekkapon Luang Prasert, founder of the Sai Mai Must Survive Facebook page, after being unexpectedly charged as a defendant in the case despite initially being called as a victim. Aman explained that on the day of the incident, he was transporting a passenger from the Ratchada area to Chulalongkorn University. At the Makkasan intersection, traffic was heavily congested with many vehicles clustered at the junction while the railway crossing barrier had not yet descended and no train signal was audible. He therefore rode into the intersection and stopped at the yellow line to avoid the railway tracks. Moments later, a train struck a bus, which then collided with several other vehicles and motorcycles ahead, damaging his bike and causing minor injuries to him and his passenger. He immediately took his passenger to Rama 9 Hospital for treatment, then to another facility, and later filed a daily report and gave a statement to police as a victim, while ensuring his passenger also provided a statement as requested. His insurance subsequently paid 31,000 baht in compensation for his motorcycle damage, which he used as a down payment on a new bike.
In July, Aman received notice to meet with the prosecutor and discovered he had been charged alongside six other individuals involved in the incident, including the bus driver, train driver, railway flagman, truck driver, and another motorcyclist. He was unaware of his defendant status until he had to arrange bail money and was detained in jail for one night. Aman expressed particular concern about drug possession charges appearing in his case alongside negligence and railway obstruction charges, despite his firm denial of any involvement with drugs. He stressed that he was not the operator of the train, no passengers died, and cannot understand why he was included in charges related to deaths and drug use. Being listed as a defendant in connection with drug charges could severely damage his reputation and future employment and job applications, as he is a working man supporting a family.
Ekkapon Luang Prasert stated that preliminary investigation and video evidence show the rider stopped in the yellow line zone where stopping is prohibited, potentially establishing negligence and railway obstruction charges if passengers were injured. However, the key issue requiring clarification is why the rider was included as a defendant in charges related to deaths and drug possession, as this could impact his record and future career prospects. Meanwhile, Pol. Lt. Col. Uramphorn Khundetchsamrit, commander of Makkasan Police Station, said the case is currently at the prosecutor stage and requested verification of information first. He noted that being named a defendant reflects the alleged facts cited in the indictment and does not necessarily mean he will face all charges equally as other defendants, and that drug charges would require corroborating evidence to proceed according to factual grounds.
