In general, serious traffic offenders are hard to influence with common measures, such as imposing fines. A suspension or invalidation of the driving licence can be effective, particularly if coupled with a different measure, such as personal or group coaching and monitoring [48]. A problem related to this measure is that part of the drivers continue to drive even without a valid licence [49].
In general, a penalty is most effective for serious offenders if it entails a combination of cohesive components (such as temporary vehicle confiscation, driving licence suspension, or a fine), or the choice of a rehabilitation programme in exchange for a speedier vehicle or licence return, or a combination of monitoring alcohol use and personal coaching [50] [51]. The penalty should both be severe and encourage behaviour improvement (in exchange for a penalty reduction).
Serious alcohol offenders
For serious alcohol offenders, an alcohol lock has proved to have the greatest preventive effect and to be more effective than suspension or invalidation of the driving licence [52].
A 2011 meta-analysis [53] showed that an alcohol lock programme reduces the risk of repeat offending by 75% during the time the measure applies. Results of more recent studies are consistent with this outcome [52]. They also show a significantly lower risk of repeat offending and also only during the time the alcohol lock is present. Swedish findings do, however, show that alcohol lock programmes may indeed result in permanent changes, both in alcohol consumption and in driving behaviour, even after the programme has ended and the alcohol lock has been removed [54] [55]. The researchers say the changes are permanent because of the integrated programme approach: it not only tackles the symptoms of the alcohol problem but also its causes. An important component in this integrated approach is that, even after removal of the alcohol lock, frequent medical check-ups continue [54]. In March 2015, the Council of State of the Netherlands decided that the Driving Test Organisation CBR should no longer be allowed to impose an alcohol lock programme. The most important argument was that the administrative regulatory provision, so a provision without court intervention, could prove to be disproportionate in a large number of cases. After consultation with experts, the minister of Justice and Security and the minister of Infrastructure and Water Management concluded that other measures were preferable to re-introduction of the alcohol lock (in criminal law) [56].
A relatively new penalty for alcohol offenders is monitoring alcohol use by means of an alcohol monitoring ankle bracelet, possibly coupled with a special behavioural therapy programme. Abroad, results of monitoring by means of anklets are mostly positive [57] [58] [51]. In the Netherlands, a pilot project involving anklets for alcohol offenders (so not only drink driving offenders) ran in 2017 and 2018. This so-called ‘Alcohol Monitor’ was coupled with supervision by the probation service. The Dutch results were also positive, although it should be noted that project participation was voluntary [59].
Serious speeding offenders
Studies were done to see whether monitoring of and giving feedback about serious offender behaviour could improve behaviour. Studies in 2014 showed that such measures usually lead to a clearly improved driving style [60] [61]. Drivers do, however, relapse as soon as feedback is stopped. Yet, the closer feedback is coupled with a personal coaching programme and the more intensive the programme is, the longer the driving style improvement lasts.
