Can anyone still remember the brouhaha over traffic crackdowns imposed by a Section 44 announcement a few weeks back?
The announcement was intended to put a cap on the number of accidents and casualties, which usually peak during Songkran and New Year.
It stirred up quite an uproar, particularly among the folks relying on pickup trucks for transportation. But as usual, the campaign lasted just long enough for people to forget it.
Police traffic checkpoints are still routinely set up but only the usual suspects -- pickup trucks and motorcycles -- are targeted.
Wasant Techawongtham is former News Editor, Bangkok Post.
With traffic volume increasing dramatically during Songkran and New Year, it has become customary for relevant authorities to come out in force to ensure people do not do foolish things on the roads.
The press religiously monitors accident reports to satisfy the reading public's curiosity. People are as interested in the number of road accidents and casualties as they are anticipating festival fun.
A lot of money and human resources are spent in an attempt to keep those numbers down.
After the past Songkran, officials patted themselves on the back when figures showed the number of deaths was lower than the previous year.
But they stopped short of declaring their campaign a success. And for good reason.
Statistically, the number of fatal casualties from road accidents during the so-called seven dangerous days at Songkran or New Year hovers around 300+ to 400+.
The number swings up or down unpredictably from year to year. It's impossible to determine what factor or factors contribute to its increase or decline.
The only thing authorities can say for certain is that alcohol consumption and motorcycles feature prominently in the statistics.
Considering the lack of clear and significant achievement of the campaign at great costs, we must ask a question: Does the current modus operandi of traffic accident control make any sense?
An ancillary question is: Shouldn't the resources be distributed more equitably for accident prevention during the rest of the year?
It has been widely reported that the World Health Organisation has ranked Thailand in its 2015 road safety report as the second most auto-accident prone in the world, behind only war-torn Libya. That was a step up -- or down -- from the previous WHO study in 2013 when Thailand was ranked third.
In the 2015 report, the reported number of road traffic deaths in Thailand was 13,650. That's figured out to be 36.2 deaths per 100,000 people. In the 2013 report, the number was 13,365 or 38.1 deaths per 100,000 people.
During the two major festivals, the number goes up to between 50 and over 60 per 100,000.
Officials have declared their intention to reduce this number to 10 per 100,000. Obviously, a lot of work needs to be done if the goal is to be reached.
The most obvious pitfall of the current mode of operation is that most resources are spent during the two festivals. The results do not warrant the magnitude of efforts and resources that are invested.
Meanwhile, during the rest of the year it is up to each jurisdiction to carry out traffic prevention operations, which consist mainly of setting up day-time checkpoints.
The difference during festivals is that more checkpoints are set up and operated day and night.
Police are in love with checkpoints. They are traps that allow the police to stay in one place and choose their targets. The police have strength in numbers and pose an intimidating presence.
But checkpoints are a nuisance for motorists because they cause traffic backups as well as presenting road hazards. They take up one or two lanes of road space, not just on city roads but on highways.
But the single biggest flaw of these road traps is that they are limited in their ability to deter traffic violation. They may trap some motorists but the majority of violators are able to roam free without harassment as long as they avoid the checkpoints. We see all the time vehicles running red lights with impunity, driven in various unsafe manners, operated with broken lights or modified lights that pose road hazards, and so on and so on.
Can checkpoints trap them? A very insignificant few.
There is enough evidence to conclude that effective enforcement and deterrence will not be achieved with stationary checkpoints. Mobile patrols, on the other hand, would have a greater deterrent effect, if carried out consistently.
People are not afraid of the police in their absence. That's why we see violations all the time when police are out of sight.
For effective deterrence, authorities ought to rethink their strategy. Get rid of checkpoints. Instead, resources should go into training and equipping mobile units. These mobile units need to make their presence felt -- day and night. Their effectiveness relies on their predictability and unpredictability. That may sound like a contradiction but it's not.
Their predictability is predicated on their constant presence on the roads while their unpredictability is predicated on their constant movement so that motorists are unable to predict where they might encounter law enforcement. In this way deterrence is achieved. Foolish behaviour on the roads will gradually decline as a result.
But the police may not like this because it requires them to be active constantly. Another problem is that, as traffic violations decline, the amount of fines the police are able to collect will also fall. And because their earnings are based in part on the fines they can generate, they may not be incentivised to change their ways.