This study examined control of drink driving that could produce traffic accident to give serious damages and losses. At first, the study investigated previous discussions on drink driving, in other words, the one discussion is about relations between drivers' general characteristics, while the other is control of drink driving, and drink driving. The former investigated relations between drivers' characteristics of drinking, psychological characteristics, driving characteristics and drink driving, and relations between drivers' various characteristics and drink driving. The latter investigated relations between control and drink driving, and effects of control policies. The questionnaire was used. The subject was 1,500 drivers at Seoul who drove their own cars. The questionnaire survey was done from August 11, 2010 to September 8, 2010 to investigate attitude toward drink driving, attitude toward control and punishment against drink driving, actual conditions of drink driving and associated factors.
The findings were:
Firstly, the interviewees did not agree with drink driving, and thought of drink driving negatively. They thought that they were not permitted to drive after drinking regardless of experience of traffic accident, drinking capacity at daily lives and driving ability. Most of the interviewees had internal control on drink driving, and they thought much of high degree of social sanction when driving a car after drinking. The traffic accident may have relation with drink driving. The one who thinks much of traffic accident when driving a car after drinking may hesitate to drive a car after drinking. As many as 90% of the interviewees said that drink driving was much likely to produce traffic accident. The interviewees thought that drink driving was most likely to produce traffic accident together with speed violation. The interviewees thought much of preventative education the most, followed by the police's control and public advertisement on prevention of drunk drinking. The countermeasures against drink driving were classified into three, that is to say, common preventative measures, control and punishment, and prevention of driving while drunk. The interviewees thought that not only common preventative measure but also control and punishment were more important than prevention of driving while drunk.
Secondly, the interviewees thought of control of drink driving: Less than half of the interviewees agreed with certainty of apprehension of drink driving. 45% of the interviewees said the possibility of apprehension of drink driving is more than 61%, while 55% of them said the possibility of apprehension of drink driving is 60% or less. The credibility of drink driving control was: The interviewees disagreed with three questions at higher ratio that the police controlled drink driving at his discretion. But, the ratio of disagreement was around 30% not to be high.
Thirdly, the interviewees thought of punishment against drink driving: As many as 90% of the interviewees said that punishment was needed. Most of the interviewees said that current blood alcohol concentration of 0.05% or more was appropriate. The questions of legal knowledge on drink driving consisted of three: The interviewees gave correct answer at selection from five questions at the rate of 10 to 60%. Legal knowledge can help cognize cost of drink driving. So, drivers shall learn basic legal knowledge concerning drink driving. 30% of the interviewees acknowledged upward adjustment of legal punishment that was revised in 2009. 70% of the interviewees said that legal punishment was appropriate. 70% of the interviewees thought that relief of subsistence should be put into practice continuously. 80% of the interviewees thought that three-strike-out system and crime of injury and killing by dangerous driving would be appropriate. Common drivers were sympathized with control policy of drunken driving. The interviewees said that suspension or cancellation of driver license was the most effective to sanction drink driving, followed by fine, welfare service and safe driving education in order. On the other hand, in 2004, the interviewees said that suspension of driver license, cancellation of driver license were the most effective to sanction drink driving, followed by fine. Therefore, in both 2004 and 2010, the interviewees said that administrative measures such as suspension and cancellation of driver license as well as fine were effective to sanction drink driving.
Fourthly, actual conditions and factors of drink driving were: 73.8% didn't drive their cars when drunk last one year, in other words, driving after drinking either 2.5 cup or more of soju or 500 cc or more of beer, and 26.2% experienced to drive car when drunk. The findings of 2010 was almost same as that of 2004. The drink driving had related dmographic characteristics: Men drivers did drink driving more than women drivers did. The ones who earned high monthly income in average did drink driving more often. Blue-color workers did drink driving more often. Frequent driving in the evening of weekend, confidence in their own driving ability, neglection of safe driving at ordinary time and frequent violation of traffic regulations, etc had closer relations with drink driving. Age of drinking onset, frequent drinking at ordinary time, much drinking at ordinary time and frequent heavy drinking had influence upon drink driving. Attachment of family and job, belief in conventional values, and low self-control had influence upon drink driving. The ones who regarded drink driving as common practice, favorable attitudes and low possibility of traffic accident often did drink driving. Ride on drunk driver's car and acquaintance's favorable attitude toward drink driving had influence upon drink driving. Legal knowledge, official control, cognition on social sanction and internal control had influence upon drink driving. And, the study examined demographic factors, driving, drinking, psychological characteristics, attitude toward drink driving, contact with drink driving and control factors. Heavy drinking was found to have the greatest influence upon drink driving. And, the findings in 2004 also showed that heavy drinking had the second largest influence upon drink driving. Therefore, heavy drinking was found to have influence upon drink driving. Heavy drinking had the largest influence upon drink driving, followed by ride on drunken driver's car, legal knowledge on drink driving and frequency of drinking at ordinary time. Not only monthly average household income but also cognation on social sanction equally had the fifth largest influence upon drink driving, followed by favorable attitude toward drink driving and self-control in order.
The study examined countermeasures against drink driving in advanced countries, for instance, the United States, the UK, Germany and Japan. The study investigated control and punishment against drink driving, prevention of repeated crime of drunk drivers, and preventative measures against drink driving.
This study suggested control program of drink driving, in particular, preventative measures:
Firstly, public relations is needed to prevent drink driving. Public relations of mass communication media shall be strengthened, for instance, a campaign in the United States that makes use of social norms marketing. The public relations by mass communication media shall include effects of drinking upon driving skills, and knowledge on legal punishment.
Secondly, NGO (non government organization) is demanded to be active to prevent drink driving. NGO not only can notify risks of drink driving but also
can help make policies for prevention of drink driving.
Thirdly, students shall be taught prevention of drink driving at schools. When students grow up to be adults in the future, they shall not violate traffic laws and regulations including drink driving.
Fourthly, workers shall be taught prevention of drink driving at works. For instance, ASK in Japan employs the ones having influence in the company to teach prevention of drink driving and makes them teach prevention of drink driving to the employees when returning to the company.
Fifthly, start age of drinking shall be extended and heavy drinking shall be avoided.
Sixthly, drivers shall experience prevention of drink driving by themselves. In Germany and Japan, drivers learn effects of drinking upon driving by using simulation to avoid drink driving effectively.
Seventhly, dangers of ride on drunken driver's car shall be perceived in the society.
Eighthly, the government shall inform citizens of strict legal punishment against drink driving and other punishment.
Ninthly, citizens' keeping of rules shall be strengthened in the society.
In addition, the study suggested preventative measures against drink driving when a driver is drunk:
Firstly, nomination system of a driver shall be introduced to nominate the one who shall not drink to drive a car later.
Secondly, ride service program shall be effective at the end of the year when citizens drink often.
Thirdly, substitute driver system shall promote easiness and convenience in the use.
Fourthly, a driver shall be permitted to check his or her blood alcohol concentration when being drunk.
Fifthly, education program for liquor sellers can be used to prevent guests from driving a car after drinking at bars and restaurants.
And, the study suggested control of drink driving by control as well as punishment.
Firstly, control of drink driving shall be strengthened, for instance, patrol system in the United States, hot lines preventing drink driving, and making drivers follow regulations on drink driving.
Secondly, drunk drivers shall be punished depending upon either blood alcohol concentration or times of violation. And, ignition interlock can be considered in addition to criminal punishment.
And, the study suggested control of drink driving by correction of drunk drivers:
Firstly, drunk drivers shall be given not only probation but also social service order and attendance center order.
Secondly, drunk drivers who are alcohol addict shall be given therapy programs.
Thirdly, drunk drivers shall be educated according to social welfare activities.
Fourthly, attendance center order shall be used considering characteristics of drunk drivers who repeatedly drive after drinking.