Preventable deaths, both on land and water, continue to rise in the country. In late January, the nation mourned the untimely death of Dr Waraluck Supawatjariyakul, an ophthalmologist with a promising career. Her life was cut short by a speeding motorcycle at a pedestrian crossing.
Just as news of Thai provinces getting creative with road safety campaigns began making the rounds, we heard the news of another tragic death. This time, it was TV actress Nida "Tangmo" Patcharaveerapong, who fell off a speedboat and drowned in the Chao Phraya River. She did not have a lifejacket on.
What makes these cases similar is the simple fact that both women would have been alive if laws were followed.
The lives of both these exceptional women were snuffed out due to a lack of discipline, negligence and an acute sense of indifference when it comes to following rules and regulations.
What makes the nature of the 38-year-old actress's sudden demise exceptionally sad is that according to initial forensic reports, she most likely experienced a slow and painful death.
A gaping wound on her leg, yet to be determined if it came from the propeller of the speedboat, coupled with strong currents at that hour, made her unable to stay afloat on her own.
Her body eventually sank to the bottom of the riverbed before floating up a few days later.
As there are still a number of unanswered questions around her death, which is now being investigated as a criminal case, as the speedboat owner and driver are facing charges of causing death and negligence, the investigation has become a top story in daily news bulletins.
We are hearing experts from various fields give their assessment of the circumstances surrounding her death. But what we are not hearing is how a lifejacket could have kept Nida alive even though she was badly hurt and had to fight against strong currents.
From interviews given by the speedboat owner and the late actress' manager, there were lifejackets on board but none of the passengers used them because the plan was to take photos of themselves along the river. Thus, wearing a lifejacket would only have "spoilt" the leisure photo session.
Not enforcing the use of lifejackets was a lapse of judgement by the skipper that compromised the safety of the passengers given that at some point the boat was speeding, a fact later corroborated by witness accounts of youngsters fishing that fateful night.
The location where Nida allegedly fell is believed to be a dangerous spot in the river due to its depth and fluctuating currents.
While life jackets are usually under passenger seats or placed to the side within arm's reach of passengers, in practice, people seldom opt to use them in big cities.
That is why when accidents occur quickly, people have little time to react or reach for a lifejacket.
Agencies like the United States Coast Guard estimate that the use of lifejackets can save lives in over 80% of boating accidents. They state that people should not count on the security of their boat to protect them nor should they fall into the trap of believing they have enough time to don a lifejacket in an emergency.
"Err on the side of caution; always wear a lifejacket when on or near the water," is the word of caution offered.
Indifference towards following basic rules and regulations in Thailand is common practice. Entitlement and lack of discipline is often the root cause of motorists not stopping at a zebra crossing for pedestrians.
The situation with lifejackets is no different. Take a ride down the Saen Sap Canal and lifejackets might be visible, but no one cares to wear them. The same goes for passenger boats ferrying people on the Chao Phraya River.
Ask anyone why this attitude and you might likely hear the reply: "It is uncomfortable and I feel as long as I know where they are located, there shouldn't be an issue."
While it is my hope that Nida's fatal drowning highlights the importance of wearing lifejackets like never before, the chances of it happening are unfortunately slim.
A random survey asking people if the death of the actress would become a catalyst for change in the manner lifejackets are viewed turned up some interesting feedback.
Some said this is a lost cause and that Thais are not wired to discipline themselves to follow regulations, even ones that can save their lives, while others believed many haven't even entertained the thought because they are more curious to know about the unsavoury details of Nida's death than what can be learned from it.
Piyaporn Tunneekul, a criminologist and mother of two, made an interesting observation which went something like this: "Knowing the mindset of most Thais, Nida's preventable death will not impact people to change their laid back attitude towards wearing a lifejacket because she was not their immediate family member or friend.
"It is only when they lose someone near and dear to them that this will hit home."
Piyaporn suggested a plan, saying: "I would like to propose that existing laws should have a clause where it stipulates that if anyone who can bring evidence of lifejackets not being utilised for their purpose, they should be offered a monetary reward and boat owners fined heavily each time. The media could also keep a tab on this so authorities would also take it seriously.
"In this manner, they will be pressured to enforce passengers wear lifejackets. Otherwise, their businesses would eventually fold."
She said it was all about prioritising and discipline.
"If the owner of the speedboat made sure that each passenger that day wore a lifejacket, even for most of the ride down the river, I believe Tangmo may not have lost her life in her prime."
Yvonne Bohwongprasert is a feature writer with the Life section of the Bangkok Post.
