Williams Allan F, McCartt Anne T, Ferguson Susan A
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Arlington, VA 22201, USA.
Traffic Inj Prev. 2007 Mar;8(1):1-10. doi: 10.1080/15389580600992895.
Understanding the hardcore drinking driver concept in the context of the alcohol-impaired driving problem.
Review of the relevant literature.
As progress against alcohol-impaired driving slowed in the early 1990s, public and political attention turned to "hardcore" drinking drivers, and they have been a priority for the past 15 years. Though intuitive, the hardcore concept has been difficult to conceptualize. Its definition of hard-to-change chronic heavy drinking drivers focuses on a group that is not easily identifiable and ignores many who account for a large portion of alcohol-impaired driving crashes. These include drivers who drink heavily on occasion and drivers who drink at more moderate levels that elevate crash risk. Emphasis on the hardcore has focused attention on the small proportion of drinking drivers who have been detected and arrested, whereas the vast majority of drinking drivers go undetected. Some countermeasures aimed at the hardcore group have been effective in reducing recidivism, but attention and resources also need to be given to general deterrent initiatives (e.g., 0.08 g/dL, sobriety checkpoints, administrative license suspension). There has been no reduction in the overall alcohol-impaired driving problem since the mid-1990s.
Reductions in the alcohol-impaired driving problem require that attention be focused on all relevant target groups. Some benefits could accrue by recognizing that countermeasures developed for hardcore drinking drivers, such as alcohol ignition interlocks and vehicle or plate impoundment, might also be effective with more numerous first-time offenders. However, such strategies are likely to be most effective against recidivism (specific deterrence). Greater gains could be achieved through general deterrent efforts (increasing the real and perceived risk of arrest and punishment to all drinking drivers), along with application of public health measures designed to reduce overall consumption. Additional ways need to be found to separate drinking and driving, either through cultural changes in drinking and/or driving behavior or, in the future, with the use of technology that can make vehicles inoperable by drivers with illegal blood alcohol concentrations.
在酒后驾车问题的背景下理解重度饮酒驾驶者的概念。
回顾相关文献。
20世纪90年代初,随着打击酒后驾车的进展放缓,公众和政治关注转向了“重度饮酒驾驶者”,在过去15年里他们一直是优先关注对象。尽管这个概念直观,但却难以概念化。其对难以改变的长期重度饮酒驾驶者的定义聚焦于一个不易识别的群体,且忽视了许多导致大量酒后驾车事故的人。这些人包括偶尔大量饮酒的驾驶者以及饮酒量处于适度水平但会增加撞车风险的驾驶者。对重度饮酒驾驶者的强调将注意力集中在了已被发现和逮捕的一小部分饮酒驾驶者身上,而绝大多数饮酒驾驶者未被发现。一些针对重度饮酒驾驶者群体的对策在减少累犯方面已见成效,但也需要关注和资源投入到一般威慑举措(如法定血液酒精浓度0.08克/分升、清醒度检查站、行政吊销驾照)上。自20世纪90年代中期以来,酒后驾车问题的整体情况并未减少。
要减少酒后驾车问题,需要关注所有相关目标群体。认识到为重度饮酒驾驶者制定的对策,如酒精点火联锁装置和车辆或车牌扣押,可能对更多初次违法者也有效,会带来一些益处。然而,此类策略可能对减少累犯(特殊威慑)最为有效。通过一般威慑努力(增加所有饮酒驾驶者被逮捕和受惩罚的实际及感知风险)以及应用旨在减少总体饮酒量度的公共卫生措施,可取得更大成效。需要找到更多方法来将饮酒与驾车分开,要么通过饮酒和/或驾车行为的文化变革,要么在未来通过使用能使血液酒精浓度违法的驾驶者无法操作车辆的技术。