Citation

Forward S, Linderholm I, Forsberg I. VTI Rap. 2007; 40p-.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2007, Statens vag- och trafikinstitut (VTI))

DOI

unavailable

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

In this interview study, eleven persons participated who had driven under the impairment of alcohol. All had been convicted, but instead of a prison term and as a condition of probation they had been sentenced to undergo a treatment program for drinking drivers. In-depth interviews were carried out according to a fixed interview guide with opportunities for spontaneous comments. The interviews dealt with two different areas. The first concerned the respondents? attitude towards alcohol and driving from a general point of view and the second concerned their views on so-called ?alcolocks?. The results of the first part showed that most of the respondents had driven under the influence of alcohol on several occasions, but only two persons had previous convictions. The reasons for driving whilst impaired on the most recent occasion could be divided into three groups; an extraordinary situation, pure routine, and the morning-after when they believed that they were sober. Most of the participants did not feel that they were noticeably drunk and in general, the risk of being involved in a car accident was felt to be very small. The majority did not consider that alcohol made them poorer drivers. The event of being convicted influenced their self-image to different degrees and, for some, the feeling of guilt was difficult to live with. Those who felt the least shame were those who could transfer the responsibility to the situation, i.e. they did not have any control over what had happened or that they could not have acted in any other way. The subjective norm was also discussed and many thought that those who were nearest to them would object. Nevertheless, there were few who felt that others condemned them. The participants in the study were undergoing a program of treatment and everybody agreed that the punishment in itself, i.e. losing the driving-licence, would not have been sufficient but that they also needed the support and help which the treatment could offer. The second part of the study dealt with the respondents? opinions regarding alcolocks. From a general viewpoint, they were positive to an alcolock device, but this depended on how long it was to be fitted and the cost. All respondents said that it was expensive both to acquire and to possess an alcolock. Several respondents had refrained and considered that it was only possible for persons with sufficient economic resources. Some of those who participated in the study considered that alcolocks should be fitted into all cars. Different reasons were given, but the main one was related to the problem if alcolocks did not become part of all cars. In that case the respondents would feel exposed when it was discovered that they had had an alcolock installed. The alcolock used by the respondents had been manufactured in Canada in the 1980s, and it was therefore not surprising that it was considered to be very complicated, unreliable and conspicuous. With regard to the risks associated with alcolocks, several respondents considered that blowing in the alcolock during a journey was associated with a large traffic safety risk. The participants also emphasized that alcolocks and treatment programs are two separate measures and many would have liked to have seen a better interaction. Some emphasized the importance of treatment and were of the opinion that an alcolock alone did not have the same positive effect as when it was combined with treatment.