Advertisement

European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 417–429 | Cite as

The Impact of Deterrence Policies on Reckless Driving: The Case of Portugal

  • António F. Tavares
  • Sílvia M. Mendes
  • Cláudia S. Costa
Article

Abstract

In this paper, we test the effect of three different criminal deterrence theory policy tools: criminal certainty, severity, and celerity of punishment. Whereas most criminal deterrence studies in this field focus on the former two components of deterrence theory, this study also examines the potential deterrent effect of the latter component. Using a time-series design with monthly data, we estimate the effects of an increase in the threat of punishment for traffic offenses resulting from a general increase in fines for traffic offenses, an increase in the probability of getting caught with a blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) level outside the legal limits, and the enactment of an “on-the-spot” fine payment policy in Portugal. We find strong evidence to support a severity effect. An increase in the statutory severity of sentence maxima for traffic violations leads to a decrease in accident and injury rates—approximately an average 0.5 percent reduction in monthly accident and injury rates. Changes in the BAC levels and the mandatory swift payment policy did not produce any convincing deterrence impact.

Keywords

Blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) level Deterrence celerity Deterrence severity On-the-spot payment Reckless driving 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their sincere appreciation and gratitude to Luís Aguiar-Conraria for useful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. The Portuguese Science and Technology Foundation (FCT) and the Centre for Research on Public Policy and Administration (NEAPP) provided financial support for this project. We also appreciate the collaboration of the Portuguese Institute of Meteorology, António Ribeiro of the Portuguese Automobile Trade Association, and Fátima Tavares, Margarida Alexandre, Carlos Barroso, and Maria João Barros of the Department of Motor Vehicles in constructing the data set.

References

  1. Akers, R. L. (1990). Rational choice, deterrence, and social learning theory: the path not taken. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 81(3), 653–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andenaes, J. (1971). The role of law: the socializer - the moral or educative influence of criminal law. Journal of Social Issues, 27(2), 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andenaes, J. (1975). General prevention revisited: research and policy implications. Journal of Crime, Law and Criminology, 66(3), 338–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Asch, P., & Levy, D. T. (1990). Young driver fatalities: the roles of drinking age and drinking experience. Southern Economic Journal, 57(2), 512–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Becker, G. (1968). Crime and punishment: an economic approach. Journal of Political Economy, 76(2), 169–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benson, B. L., Rasmussen, D. W., & Mast, B. D. (1999). Deterring drunk driving fatalities: an economics of crime perspective. International Review of Law and Economics, 19(2), 205–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berger, D. E., & Snortum, J. R. (1986). A structural model of drinking and driving: alcohol consumption, social norms, and moral commitments. Criminology, 24(1), 139–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Briscoe, S. (2004). Raising the bar: can increased statutory penalties deter drink-drivers? Accident Analysis and Prevention, 36(5), 919–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. CARE (EU Road Accidents Database). (2006). Road safety evolution in the european union. Brussels: European Commission/Directorate General Energy and Transport.Google Scholar
  10. Dee, T. S. (2001). Does setting limits save lives? the case of 0.08 BAC laws. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20(1), 111–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deshapriya, E., & Iwase, N. (1996). Are lower legal blood alcohol limits and a combination of sanctions desirable in reducing drunken driver-involved traffic fatalities and traffic accidents? Accident Analysis and Prevention, 28(6), 721–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DeYoung, D. J. (2000). An evaluation of the general deterrent effect of vehicle impoundment on suspended and revoked drivers in California. Journal of Safety Research, 31(2), 51–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eisenberg, D. (2003). Evaluating the effectiveness of policies related to drunk driving. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 22(2), 249–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. European Commission (2006). An EU strategy to support member states in reducing alcohol related harm. Communication from the commission to the council, the European parliament, the European economic and social committee and the committee of regions. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  15. Fell, J. C., Ferguson, S. A., Williams, A. F., & Fields, M. (2003). Why are Sobriety Checkpoints not widely adopted as an Enforcement Strategy in the United States? Accident Analysis and Prevention, 35(6), 897–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fuchs, V. R., & Leveson, I. (1967). Motor accident mortality and compulsory inspection of vehicles. Journal of the American Medical Association, 201(9), 657–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grasmick, H. G., Bursik, R. J., & Arneklev, B. J. (1993). Reduction in drunk driving as a response to increased threats of shame, embarrassment, and legal sanctions. Criminology, 31(1), 41–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Green, D. E. (1989). Past behavior as a measure of actual future behavior: an unresolved issue in perceptual deterrence research. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 80(3), 781–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Holcomb, R. L. (1938). Alcohol in relation to traffic accidents. Journal of the American Medical Association, 111, 1076–1085.Google Scholar
  20. Houston, D. J., & Richardson Jr., L. E. (2002). Traffic safety and the switch to a primary seat belt law: the California experience. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 34(6), 743–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Houston, D. J., & Richardson Jr., L. E. (2006). Reducing traffic fatalities in the American States by upgrading seat belt use laws to primary enforcement. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 25(3), 645–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kenkel, D. S. (1993). Drinking, driving, and deterrence: the effectiveness and social costs of alternative policies. Journal of Law and Economics, 36(2), 877–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Legge Jr., J. S. (1990). Reforming highway safety in New York State: an evaluation of alternative policy interventions. Social Science Quarterly, 71(2), 373–382.Google Scholar
  24. Legge, J. S. Jr., & Park, J. (1994). Policies to reduce alcohol-impaired driving: evaluation elements of deterrence. Social Science Quarterly, 75(3), 594–606.Google Scholar
  25. Loeb, P. D. (1990). Automobile safety inspection: further econometric evidence. Applied Economics, 22(12), 1697–1704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mann, R. E., Macdonald, S., Stoduto, G., Bondy, S., Jonah, B., & Shaikn, A. (2001). The effects of introducing or lowering legal per se blood alcohol limits for driving: an international review. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 33(5), 569–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mendes, S. M. (2004). Certainty, severity, and their relative deterrent effects: questioning the role of risk. Policy Studies Journal, 32(1), 59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mendes, S. M., & McDonald, M. D. (2002). Putting severity of punishment back in the deterrence package. Policy Studies Journal, 29(4), 588–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pindyck, R. S., & Rubinfeld, D. L. (1998). Econometric models and economic forecasts, 4th Edition. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  30. Rhee, L., & Zhang, J. (1993). Breath testing in Canada: deterrence or detection? Applied Economics, 25(6), 765–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ross, H. L. (1984). Social control through deterrence: drinking-and-driving laws. Annual Review of Sociology, 10, 21–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ross, H. L., & Gonzales, P. (1988). The effect of license revocation on drunk-driving offenders. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 20(5), 379–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Snortum, J. R., & Berger, D. E. (1989). Drinking-driving compliance in the United States: perception and behavior in 1983 and 1986. Journal of Studies in Alcohol, 50, 306–319.Google Scholar
  34. Tay, R. (1999). The effectiveness of the anti-drink driving advertisement campaign in New Zealand. Road Transport Research, 8(4), 3–15.Google Scholar
  35. Tay, R. (2004). The relationship between public education and enforcement campaigns and their effectiveness in reducing speed related serious crashes. International Journal of Transport Economics, 31(2), 251–255.Google Scholar
  36. Tay, R. (2005). Drink driving enforcement and publicity campaigns: are the policy recommendations sensitive to model specification? Accident Analysis and Prevention, 37(2), 259–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Weinrath, M. (1997). The ignition interlock program for drunk drivers: a multivariate test. Crime Delinquency, 43(1), 42–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yu, J. (1994). Punishment celerity and severity: testing a specific deterrence model on drunk-driving recidivism. Journal of Criminal Justice, 22(4), 355–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • António F. Tavares
    • 1
  • Sílvia M. Mendes
    • 1
  • Cláudia S. Costa
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of International Relations and Public Administration, School of Economics and ManagementUniversity of Minho (Gualtar)BragaPortugal
  2. 2.School of Technology and Management of MirandelaPolytechnic Institute of BragançaBragançaPortugal

Personalised recommendations