"Poor targeted by cops again" as pick-up seating ban looms for New Year travel

[webfact]

"Poor targeted by cops again" as pick-up seating ban looms for New Year travel

 

Picture: Thai News Agency

 

Thai News Agency reported that online comment was rife as the Thai police intended to enforce the ban on people sitting in the back of pick-ups travelling home for the holidays.

 

The police say it is one of the best ways to stop death and injury - but the poor say they are being targeted again just like at Songkran when the issue became national news.

 

TNA said that national police chief Jakthip Chaijinda has told his men to strictly enforce the ban and also get tough on drink drivers.

 

Vehicles of drink drivers may be impounded.

 

The chief said Saturday that 80% of accidents are caused by people disobeying the traffic regulations.

 

Picture: Thai News Agency

 

Many of Thailand's poorer people use pick-up transport to return to the provinces saving money on buses and trains. But when accidents occur people travelling unsecured in the back of the open trucks are often killed and injured.

 

Thailand is now said to be the most dangerous place in the world to drive after recent statistics were released.

 

Source: Thai News Agency

 

-- © Copyright Thai Visa News 2017-12-18

[darksidedog]

I fully understand the reaction of those who have been using pick up trucks as transport and can't afford other modes of transport. However, the law says it is illegal and while that may be unpopular, it won't be the first or last unpopular law. As per the seat belt issue, it is designed to save lives, and that is more important than some inconvenience. I fully applaud the call to confiscate vehicles of drink drivers, of which there are way too many. Only when the cops start getting tough with the free and easy attitude on the roads, will be start to see the appalling death toll reduced.

[ChrisY1]

With the news of traffic tickets coming into force where the cops have little contact with drivers, the funds will be depleted....hitting the pick-up drivers and passengers is just another way for the cops to make some new year pocket money.....

[PatOngo]

"Poor targeted by cops again"

 

Easy pickings, no come backs.

[jvs]

8 minutes ago, darksidedog said:

I fully understand the reaction of those who have been using pick up trucks as transport and can't afford other modes of transport. However, the law says it is illegal and while that may be unpopular, it won't be the first or last unpopular law. As per the seat belt issue, it is designed to save lives, and that is more important than some inconvenience. I fully applaud the call to confiscate vehicles of drink drivers, of which there are way too many. Only when the cops start getting tough with the free and easy attitude on the roads, will be start to see the appalling death toll reduced.

I fully agree with what you are saying but why come up with this idea now.

Many people have planned the trip home already,if the government had just told the people after Songkran the law would be strictly enforced from then on it would have giving people time to adjust and plan accordingly.Two weeks before the holiday?I think they could have done a lot better than this.

[darksidedog]

1 minute ago, jvs said:

I fully agree with what you are saying but why come up with this idea now.

Many people have planned the trip home already,if the government had just told the people after Songkran the law would be strictly enforced from then on it would have giving people time to adjust and plan accordingly.Two weeks before the holiday?I think they could have done a lot better than this.

I agree with what you say about the timing of this. However, it was always going to be unpopular whenever it was introduced. If the Government hadn't caved in to pressure at Songkran and enforced it in the meantime, you are right, we wouldn't have peoples traveling plans disrupted now. The question is, when can you introduce a life saving, but unpopular measure and not get complaints? There are many other aspects of road use here that need to be addressed too, but in general, I agree with the ban, which will save lives.

[janclaes47]

39 minutes ago, webfact said:

The chief said Saturday that 80% of accidents are caused by people disobeying the traffic regulations.

 

Let me correct that chief

 

80% of accidents are caused by people disobeying the never enforced and made up on the spot traffic regulations

[Bluespunk]

1 hour ago, webfact said:

"Poor targeted by cops again" as pick-up seating ban looms for New Year travel

As much as I hold the bib in contempt, that is not why they are doing this. 

 

It’s an attempt to avoid negative publicity when the the road death figures are published. 

[sammieuk1]

Is that going to include red cars blue and yellow etc that are just pick ups with a roof?

[Chris Lawrence]

So what about the converted pick-ups (songthaew): you can get beaten up by just sitting in them? 

[JAG]

"Poor targeted by cops again"
 
Easy pickings, no come backs.

But there are a lot of them.
And if the idea that they are being targeted again gains traction amongst them...

Sent from my KENNY using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[AsianAtHeart]

The bartender is never at fault, of course.

 

Reminds me of the accidents in Taiwan caused by lingerie-wearing "betelnut babes" selling their wares roadside, turning drivers' heads, and preventing them from then seeing the vehicle just ahead that decided to stop for some.  Of course, the "babes" were never at fault.

[observer90210]

I cannot judge the modest layers of society who do not have other means of affordable transport.

 

However, the law must be ruthless with the drunk drivers, those who speed or do not respect elementary logic of road safety. No matter if they are rich or poor.

 

So yes, impound the vehicles of those who put others in danger and keeping their vehicles off the streets for a year or more,  may save a few lives for the forthcoming months. Even a hi-so, rich road warrior, can be tamed with his hi-so car being confiscated and impounded say for 2 years !!

[AsianAtHeart]

1 minute ago, observer90210 said:

I cannot judge the modest layers of society who do not have other means of affordable transport.

 

However, the law must be ruthless with the drunk drivers, those who speed or do not respect elementary logic of road safety. No matter if they are rich or poor.

 

So yes, impound the vehicles of those who put others in danger and keeping their vehicles off the streets for a year or more,  may save a few lives for the forthcoming months. Even a hi-so, rich road warrior, can be tamed with his hi-so car being confiscated and impounded say for 2 years !!

The stroke of your brush is much too imbalanced to represent an equitable solution.  According to such a policy as your post would lend itself to, someone who ran a red light because he or she didn't see it (I did this accidentally once in Thailand when the light was high and the car I was driving had tinted glass for the top six inches of the front windscreen) should have his or her vehicle impounded for two years for the inadvertent mistake.  I'm not buying that one.  Drunken driving is one thing--but to paint all other traffic infractions with the same heavy brush is not going to fly.

[anon467848]

Here's an idea for national police chief Jakthip Chaijinda. Why not get the police to enforce the law 24/7 for all the calendar days in a year, not just the selected holiday periods such as New Year, Songkran etc... too much like hard work for your stressed out officers, having to work for a whole year? 

[masuk]

1 hour ago, JAG said:

But there are a lot of them.
And if the idea that they are being targeted again gains traction amongst them...

Sent from my KENNY using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

The Song Taew owners seem to be a powerful organisation in Chiang Mai, and I cannot see these being included in the pickup ban.

The Red cars are the reason we have no buses here and more than 50% of the city roads are filled with red tops as far as the eye can see.

I notice that they all have a new sign, advising a 50% price increase to 30B around the city.   That's one-hour's salary for the average Thai worker.

Yes, we have the bus shelters and seats, but they've never been used A.F.A.I.K.

 

[manchega]

yes, of course safety is not important.

Funny I have seen this approach in industry and skills

why be safe when it costs more and is inconvenient.

 

saw a few people claiming to be Thai on forum who may be able to explain psycology of this

[thaibeachlovers]

47 minutes ago, AsianAtHeart said:

The stroke of your brush is much too imbalanced to represent an equitable solution.  According to such a policy as your post would lend itself to, someone who ran a red light because he or she didn't see it (I did this accidentally once in Thailand when the light was high and the car I was driving had tinted glass for the top six inches of the front windscreen) should have his or her vehicle impounded for two years for the inadvertent mistake.  I'm not buying that one.  Drunken driving is one thing--but to paint all other traffic infractions with the same heavy brush is not going to fly.

Is that "tinting" the glass, or the add on strips that Thais put on windscreens. My wife added one too low for me to see up so I had her change it for one that was not so low.

If the problem is caused by an add on the solution is in your hands, but as a driver the onus is on you to drive safe.

 

PS I wouldn't agree that your car should be impounded for that, but how would you be getting on if someone had died as a result? I suspect you'd be in jail.

[thaibeachlovers]

24 minutes ago, masuk said:

The Song Taew owners seem to be a powerful organisation in Chiang Mai, and I cannot see these being included in the pickup ban.

The Red cars are the reason we have no buses here and more than 50% of the city roads are filled with red tops as far as the eye can see.

I notice that they all have a new sign, advising a 50% price increase to 30B around the city.   That's one-hour's salary for the average Thai worker.

Yes, we have the bus shelters and seats, but they've never been used A.F.A.I.K.

 

They tried to introduce buses to Pattaya, but failed for the same reason.

I doubt the red songtheaws in C M, or baht buses are a problem anyway, as their speed rarely rises high enough to cause death.

[peperobi]

They just like to be on the medias, Is right to stop the road carnage, but that is the wrong way.

[samsensam]

 

it's illegal to steal, so should we not prosecute those who steal if they are poor?

 

is it ok to rob a bank to get money because you are poor?

 

the 'poor' defence may be relevant morally but it doesn't hold water in legal terms

[CGW]

25 minutes ago, manchega said:

yes, of course safety is not important.

Funny I have seen this approach in industry and skills

why be safe when it costs more and is inconvenient.

 

saw a few people claiming to be Thai on forum who may be able to explain psycology of this

I don't believe you have to be Thai to explain this, in every industry safety is based on cost saving, a good example of this is scaffolding on a building, if the cost is 500.000 baht to safely scaffold a building or it is 200.000 baht to 'manage" the cost, which means in the worst case scenario you lose one person and have to pay out 100k for inferior scaffold, guess which wins!

In Thailand a cost of a life is still not realised, they consider people disposable, I have often wondered what happens to all the injured? there must be villages full of maimed people who are unable to be productive due to accidents!

You also have to have standards and laws, until Thailand can get people to uphold standards and laws there is going to be no change!

[CGW]

4 minutes ago, samsensam said:

 

it's illegal to steal, so should we not prosecute those who steal if they are poor?

 

is it ok to rob a bank to get money because you are poor?

 

the 'poor' defence may be relevant morally but it doesn't hold water in legal terms

This is a Thai forum discussing Thailand? morals have no business being discussed

[oldhippy]

Simple solution.

Put a plastic sheet ("roof") on top of the pickup truck, call it a songthaew and voila: it is legal.

Some people think too mut!

 

 

[Moti24]

"The police say it is one of the best ways to stop death and injury - but the poor say they are being targeted again just like at Songkran when the issue became national news.

 

TNA said that national police chief Jakthip Chaijinda has told his men to strictly enforce the ban and also get tough on drink drivers."

 

I agree 100% with the BiB.  Had the laws been adhered-to when they were written, the poor would have no comment.  Unfortunately, the general opinion now of the BiB being able to collect more tea money has been brought-on by the BiB themselves.  Good words from Police Chief Jacktip Chaijinda; if the ban is enforced legally, on a permanent basis, and saves lives, he'll command my utmost respect.

[Khun Paul]

There is a way around this, ever driver of a pick-up carrying passengers in the bed of the truck should hold third party insurance to cover in case of injures or death for every named passenger. Injuries and death should not cost the Govt any money then.

[Nip]

I recall as a child in my country when bus drivers went on strike the army dusted down the troop carriers etc and they replaced the busses. Maybe the Thai army could stop beating each other up and run the routes north and south at least? That is if they really care. Its not a solution and some will argue the troop carriers not legal also but it kept my country ticking over.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Nip
Edit

[jamie2009]

The Police normally have road blocks set up on Market Days in Pattaya stopping and fining people for not wearing helmets.

The following days it’s back to normal, unless the Police are prepared to stop every one and anyone not wearing a seatbelt, sitting in the back of a pick up and not wearing helmets nought is going to change.

it always goes back to the poor people, kids can’t get too school etc so in general the laws are ignored.

If a political party stood and had a manifesto which said they would enforce all the traffic laws they would never be elected.

[Bangkok Barry]

I can't really see the point of police getting involved with those who ride in the back of pickups or don't wear helmets on bikes. The only people they endanger is themselves and it's their choice. Better they spend their time on those who are a danger to others. Is it really the duty of police and/or government to protect adults from their own actions, treating them as naughty children who should be punished?

[Jonmarleesco]

Ah, yes, the poor again - those, no doubt, who trust in their amulets that they will survive the usual carnage, always assuming they've thought of that. The RTP (for their sins) targeting safety standards has nothing to do with it.

 

Question is, will the authorities capitulate to the weight of popular stupidity, as they did at Songkran, or do what should have been done long ago and enforce common sense?

Edited December 18, 2017 by Jonmarleesco