RESEARCH FINDINGS IN OTHER COUNTRIES SUGGEST THAT DRINKING DRIVING LAWS COULD BE MUCH BETTER ENFORCED EVEN WITHOUT RESORTING TO SPECIAL PATROLS OR RANDOM CHECKS. IT HAS BEEN REPORTED THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS APPREHEND OR BREATH TEST ONLY A SMALL FRACTION OF THE POTENTIALLY IMPAIRED DRIVERS THAT THEY NORMALLY ENCOUNTER ON PATROL. THIS SURVEY OF NEW ZEALAND TRAFFIC OFFICERS WAS DESIGNED TO DETERMINE THE EXTENT TO WHICH THIS WAS THE CASE HERE, AND WHAT WERE THE MAJOR DISINCENTIVES TO BREATH TESTING. TRAFFIC OFFICER RESPONSES, OBTAINED ON AN ANONYMOUS QUESTIONNAIRE, SUGGESTED THAT THERE WERE NOT SO MANY MISSED OPPORTUNITIES AS HAD BEEN SUGGESTED BY OTHERS, BUT THAT THERE WAS A GREAT DEAL OF VARIABILITY IN THE NUMBER OF DRINKING DRIVERS DETECTED BY DIFFERENT OFFICERS. THIS WAS CONFIRMED BY THE ACTUAL DISTRIBUTION OF BREATH TESTING ACTIVITY, WHICH WAS MARKEDLY DIFFERENT IN SHAPE (POSITIVELY SKEWED) COMPARED TO THE DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES IN GENERAL. SEVERAL CLUES FROM THE DISINCENTIVESCITED ON THE QUESTIONNAIRE SUGGESTED THAT THERE ARE MAJOR DETERRENTS TO A GREATER DEGREE OF ALCOHOL ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY ON THE PART OF MOST OFFICERS. THESE ARE DISCUSSED IN TERMS OF POTENTIAL LEGISLATIVE CHANGES, AND IN RELATION TO THE CHANGES INTRODUCED IN THE 1978 TRANSPORT ACT AMENDMENT.(Author/publisher).
Samenvatting