Reader question: Is there a difference between the height of a balcony railing in Thailand compared to the Netherlands?

Perhaps this is the origin of the problem of the “farang falling from the balcony”?

The same can be said about the non-slip floors in the bathrooms. In some cities in Thailand, so many farangs slip into the bathroom and break their necks. Perhaps the larger stature and therefore the greater weight is to blame for this?

To make the question more flexible and juicier, an average height of 1.85 m is assumed for the sake of convenience, but that is incorrect. I thought it was exaggerated and not believable. A little googling wouldn't have gone amiss. So do it yourself.
The average NL height is much lower than assumed in the discussion: see http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichaamslengte,
which shows that the NL man reaches a height of 1.80 m. Do you measure the gem. height of the NL woman, then you will be even significantly smaller (173,5 cm)

It is, of course, ridiculous to let the balcony height requirement depend on the “average” height of a country's inhabitants. In any case, if you were to do that, you would have to set different requirements for hotels because that is where the “average world citizen” comes in.
But even more important is that if you adjust it to the average height, it is therefore too low for 50% of users. So here too (as with all safety requirements) a height must be chosen such that just an “acceptable number of people” because of their height run a serious risk of falling over it. So extra careful if you are tall.

The first comment of this thread connected the supposed lower height of a Thai Balcony with the phenomenon of the "farang falling from the balcony" which seems to be quite common if you believe the newspapers. It got me thinking: For the sake of simplicity I exclude willfulness and irresponsible far-reaching drunkenness of the potential faller, there is no powder against that,

A balcony that offers enough resistance to this phenomenon must meet a number of conditions.
It must be sufficiently strong and resistant to a substantial collision of a body against the balcony. Weight and speed, which together determine the impact, are both important.
A sufficiently sturdy balcony still carries the risk of “tumbling over it” and a safe height has to do with the physique of the people using the balcony.
Leaning over it more than your body's center of gravity allows, even if you leave your toes on the floor of the balcony, is asking for trouble.
The height of a person is not sufficient to determine the correct height of a safe balcony. The weight of a person is not evenly distributed over the length, it is more about the "center of gravity" of the body, the higher that light the higher the fence must be to be safe. If you look in the mirror, it's easy to understand.
The safe height of a fence in case the potential faller is helped (with) a hand (or knee), is actually determined in exactly the same way by the build of the body.
The speed with which that happens doesn't really have that much to do with it, if the gravity is above the height of the fence, it will tumble quickly. Drinking alcohol beforehand will only make that easier, but the center of gravity has to be above fence height for it to happen. Thinking about it, you quickly see that Someone with a bodybuilder's figure is at a disadvantage and someone with a beer belly is at an advantage (being about the same height. The weight doesn't even matter that much.)
Could that be the reason that I see so many older Western men with an ornamental beer belly in Thailand and then that is intuitive self-protection or have many skinny people gone over the fence?