Heifer U
Institut für Rechtsmedizin, Universität Bonn.
Blutalkohol. 1991 May;28(3):121-45.
Since the expert report of the Federal Health Office (FHO) in 1966 (also compare FHO expert report 1977) numerous papers about the influence of small doses of alcohol on driving ability have been published (see Blood Alcohol, Alcohol, Drugs and Behavior). These papers emphasise the possibility to prove an acute influence on the central nervous system of man with characteristic consequences for his readiness to perform and his general effectiveness with regard to the safe conduct of a vehicle above a concentration of blood alcohol from 0.2 to 0.3% upwards. This experimentally observed increase in knowledge which conforms with jurisdiction i.e. assuming the possibility of alcohol-effected reduced driving ability above 0.3% in individual cases, -however, does not include a regular capability to detect a reduced driving ability for a range in blood alcohol concentration of 0.3% to 1.0% (see opinion of the directors and boards in the German Society for Legal Medicin, 1984). From All presentations the following conclusions may be drawn regarding the level and traffic medicals als well as psychophysical relevance and the forensic importance of alcohol threshold values in road traffic: 1. The 0.0% would be consistent. Each trace of blood alcohol can influence driving ability. Such a limit would, however, be linked to an intolerable cover-up-level. 2. The threshold level to prove the effect of alcohol lies at 0.3% to 0.4% as a basic value (jurisdiction = 0.3%). This level must definitely be regarded as preventing traffic accidents. FREUDENBERG, 1966: At 0.4% the relative probability to become involved a lethal traffic accident is 2.1 times higher than the sober value. BORKENSTEIN, 1964/74: At 0.4% the relative probability to cause an accident is not significantly higher than the sober value. A blood alcohol concentration of 0.4% may be proven by an analytical average value of 0.5% (safety margin: 0.1%). From legal and traffic medical viewpoint nothing contradicts the intention to establish an abstract danger ceiling at 0.4 + 0.1% = 0.5% linked to unlawful behaviour and the prohibition to drive. 3. The danger ceiling presently in operation contains a basic value of 0.6 to 0.7% and a safety margin of 0.15% = 0.8%. At 0.6 to 0.7% the majority of drivers are unable to participate in the traffic. FREUDENBERG, 1966: At 0.7% the relative possibility to become involved in an traffic accident is 3.7 times higher als compared to the sober value. BORKENSTEIN: At 0.7% the relative probability to cause an accident in increased 2.7 times.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)
自1966年联邦卫生局(FHO)的专家报告(另见FHO 1977年专家报告)以来,已发表了大量关于小剂量酒精对驾驶能力影响的论文(见《血液酒精、酒精、药物与行为》)。这些论文强调,当血液酒精浓度从0.2%至0.3%及以上时,有可能证明对人体中枢神经系统有急性影响,这会对其执行任务的准备状态以及在安全驾驶车辆方面的总体效能产生特定后果。这种通过实验观察到的认识提升与司法管辖权相符,即假设在个别情况下,血液酒精浓度高于0.3%时可能出现酒精影响导致驾驶能力下降的情况,然而,这并不包括在血液酒精浓度为0.3%至1.0%范围内常规检测到驾驶能力下降的能力(见德国法医学协会董事和董事会的意见,1984年)。从所有陈述中,可以就道路交通中酒精阈值的水平、交通医学意义、心理生理相关性以及法医重要性得出以下结论:1. 0.0%的阈值是合理的。血液中任何微量酒精都可能影响驾驶能力。然而,这样的限制会带来难以容忍的掩盖程度。2. 证明酒精影响的阈值水平基本值为0.3%至0.4%(司法管辖权 = 0.3%)。这个水平肯定应被视为预防交通事故的标准。弗罗伊登贝格,1966年:血液酒精浓度为0.4%时,发生致命交通事故的相对概率比清醒时高2.1倍。博肯施泰因,1964/74年:血液酒精浓度为0.4%时,引发事故的相对概率并不比清醒时显著更高。血液酒精浓度0.4%可通过分析平均值0.5%来证明(安全边际:0.1%)。从法律和交通医学角度来看,设定与违法行为和禁止驾驶相关的抽象危险上限为0.4 + 0.1% = 0.5%并无矛盾之处。3. 当前实施的危险上限包含基本值0.6至0.7%以及安全边际0.15% = 0.8%。血液酒精浓度为0.6至0.7%时,大多数司机无法参与交通。弗罗伊登贝格,1966年:血液酒精浓度为0.7%时,发生交通事故的相对可能性比清醒时高3.7倍。博肯施泰因:血液酒精浓度为0.7%时,引发事故的相对概率增加2.7倍。(摘要截断于400字)