Deterrence and Prevention of Alcohol-Impaired Driving in Australia, the United States, and Norway

• NCJ Number: 128685
• Journal: Justice Quarterly Volume: 7 Issue: 3 Dated: (September 1990) Pages: 453-465
• Author(s): D E Berger; J R Snortum; R J Homel; R Hauge; W Loxley
• Date Published: 1990
• Length: 13 pages
• Sponsoring Agency: National Science Foundation; Criminology Research Council; Claremont Graduate School
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Survey
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

A sample of 4,316 drivers from Australia, the United States, and Norway responded to national surveys probing individual, social, and legal factors that contribute to the control of alcohol-impaired driving.

Abstract

Drivers who said they had not consumed any alcoholic beverages in the previous year were excluded from the analysis. Abstainers accounted for 25 percent of the Australian sample, 37 percent of the American sample, and 15 percent of the Norwegian sample. Australians had the highest level of exposure to opportunities for intoxicated driving due to a combination of frequent drinking occasions away from home and a social norm whereby many drank to intoxication levels. Although self-reported driving while slightly intoxicated was the highest in Australia, there was clear evidence of general deterrence. Australians were knowledgeable of relevant laws, and most expected significant penalties to be imposed if they were arrested. In the United States, there was less exposure to drinking occasions away from home, and fewer drivers usually consumed more than three drinks on any given occasion. Yet, drivers exercised fewer controls on drinking and driving. Americans were relatively cynical about the effectiveness of laws governing alcohol-impaired driving. A common view was that a good lawyer could get one off from most penalties. Norwegians attended drinking occasions away from home less frequently than Australians and Americans. When they did attend such occasions, however, they were the most likely to get drunk. Self-reported intoxicated driving and random roadside checks indicated a much lower violation rate in Norway than in Australia and the United States. Intoxicated driving in Norway was concentrated heavily among drivers who usually consumed four or more drinks on one occasion. Knowledge of drunk driving laws and penalties was more prevalent among Norwegian drinkers. Norway progressed the most toward general prevention, whereas Australia relied more on general deterrence. Both general deterrence and general prevention were relatively weak in the United States. 15 references and 3 tables