So the update on this... My Thai lawyer, irritatingly, did not write back- it's as though he has other things to do on the weekend... But I went down to the police station to get some perspective too. If they wind up officially involved I suspect they will try to arbitrate some kind of cost split to keep the peace, but OFFICIALLY roads are for cars not dogs. Potential Gray area in that it's an easement, not a public road- but the law specifies public or private road (technically an easement isn't either one, but I'm confident it is covered).

I plan to offer him a small something mostly to assuage my own guilt- I am sad that there is sadness- but I suspect the conversation is going to go off the rails as A) he is very upset and B) sort of telegraphed he is a bit skeezy... As time goes on I am more and more angry that I now have this emotional burden because he is a shitty dog owner. I'm a sensitive guy. Shrug. My plan is to avoid the whole concept of him being a knucklehead unless he escalates. Wish me luck I guess

Pava Scotty word.

@Kev ********

good data thank you.

@Mark ****

he is an Aussie 555

@Mark **************

I am of two minds. It reminds me of Luis CK bit about "of course there should be peanut warnings". I slowed down, but did not stop. If I could go back I could've avoided it. But if you stopped to wait for the dogs to get out of the road you would never get anywhere. There is a sort of silent negotiation that happens where the dog, depending on how entitled he feels or how strong his survival instinct is, slowly gets out of the way. This was that, except the dog panicked and made a U-turn and ran into my wheel. It's fucked up. But of course OBVIOUSLY the owner shouldn't let the dog roam unattended. If I'd been on 2 wheels with one of the kids there would be violence happening.

@Jeff ********

there is quite a bit of that.

@Marty ********

so this is actually interested... I went to the police box to try and get an understanding before the conflict escalates... It was VERY difficult to get a straight answer. They were very invested in trying to mediate. The cynic in me suspects it was the potential to pocket a commission. But at face value it felt like they were interested in finding the right solution even more than applying the letter of the law.

@Mark **************

I was thinking about this a few minutes ago. Even if there is a legitimate need for the dog to be monitored in this way- them cancelling "6 clients a day for 6 weeks" is probably not the right answer when you can pay someone 300 baht a day (probably less) anyway. Shrug. The guy was/is upset. None of us do our best thinking under duress.

@Andreas ********

you are a weird dude memorising people's arrival dates.

@Andreas ********

despite contradicting Brandon I'm actually still fine for BOTH sets of parameters. Thankyou.