The NCAP Controversy (Part 4) - Boon or bane?

The Supreme Court has already issued a Temporary Restraining Order so the implementation of the Non-Contact Apprehension Policy (NCAP) was held in abeyance. But should it be totally forever thrown out? I don’t believe it will be. On the contrary, once all the issues have been ironed out, I expect it to become the norm. We’re already quite behind in this technology; most other countries have already instituted the technology long before. We are the Johnny-come-lately.

Our world systems have already advanced at great lengths as far as digital automation is concerned. Most of the time, our financial transactions have already become digital, done through our computers or cellphones. Sped up by the pandemic, a big chunk of our work is already done at the comfort of our own homes. We have become so dependent on gadgets that we become helpless when we accidentally leave our cellphones somewhere. There is something good and bad with that but that is already our reality, at least for most of us.

Most of NCAP’s issues are technical, administrative, and legal, nothing that can’t be resolved. Other countries are well ahead of us; it would be a pity if we insist on the crude old ways. I was shown a camera system that can identify a vehicle type, even the brand and model up to even the year of issue.

The latter may have some issues in the Philippines with our penchant of “personalizing” our vehicles by adding attachments or designs that might “confuse” the computer systems. But technology already allows the NCAP to “read” plate numbers and identify vehicles (and their registered owners) from official databases. Computer algorithms can already be programmed to identify violations of government rules based on video recordings from strategically-placed cameras.

As they have been in many other countries for years and even decades already. Unless society insists on staying in the old ages, we need to advance.

Maybe the last issue that might be tackled is the cost of it all. On one hand, one can always complain that the penalties cost too much, but on the other hand, the steep penalties can actually discourage violations, too. As already pointed out by many, the end-goal of NCAP is to discourage and minimize violations to improve traffic flow, and ultimately, mobility as a whole, not to raise revenues.

The technology and its operations have their costs, too, which need to be recovered, especially if there is a private provider thereof. The cost issue is addressed during the procurement process --was there a feasibility study submitted? And was there a provision for public challenge from competitive providers who may offer lower costs, in accordance with the governing Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) laws used? The feasibility study should show the substantial “economic returns,” not the financial gains or expected revenues, and the public challenge will ensure that the costs are competitive.

I believe NCAP will be here to stay, to say otherwise it will be a major setback in the transportation sector. Maybe what can be improved is transparency in the dissemination of public information with regards to matters or ideas which are new.