臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：酒醉駕駛人特性及其影響因素之實證研究
作者：張文菘
校院名稱：中央警察大學
系所名稱：犯罪防治研究所
指導教授：鄧煌發、孟維德
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2012
主題關鍵詞：控制因素；機會因素；酒醉駕車；factors of control；opportunity factors；drunk driving
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(5) 博士論文(1) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:4
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:198
摘 要
近十年來，我國透過不斷的修法加重道路交通管理處罰條例之處罰效果，其間更將嚴重的酒醉駕車行為予以犯罪化，並由警政單位全力執法取締，平均每年執法件數超過12萬件，然而平均每年傷亡仍高達1萬人次。因此，本論文多元廣納相關犯罪學理論：控制因素（社會控制、自我控制理論）、機會因素（日常活動理論），以探討影響酒醉駕車行為之因素為何，而非單一處罰因素來解釋。
本研究目的係為了解酒醉駕車者與非酒醉駕車者間之差異、以及影響酒醉駕車行為之因素。因此，本研究樣本分為2組：酒醉駕車組與非酒醉駕車組各300人，抽樣方法係採取非固定式母體取樣法，針對不特定前來台北市監理處洽公換發駕照、行照、國際駕照、申領牌照或驗車等事項之駕駛人為對象，由於吾人無法預知誰會前來辦理各項監理事項，所以，母體具有非固定式特色，惟研究者在施測之過程中，受訪駕駛人亦可能自陳過去有酒醉駕車之行為或是有曾經被警察取締的經驗，則亦歸屬於酒醉駕車組樣本，惟酒醉駕車組之樣本限於許多因素其取得並不容易，因此，經論文計畫書口試委員會同意，並輔以台北市道安講習機構違規酒駕者進行施測。同時，為維護與提升問卷品質及資料之真實性，本研究特別加入測謊題組，以求周延。
分析結果顯示：1、在個人基本特性方面如：性別、年齡、教育程度、婚姻、職業、家庭收入、以及犯罪前科紀錄上，酒醉駕車組與非酒醉駕車組是有顯著差異的。整體來看，酒醉駕車組是較傾向男性、低社經地位的。2、酒醉駕車5次以上者特性：男性、40~49歲居多；未婚、不穩定婚姻者居多；低社會經濟地位為多。3、酒醉駕車有犯罪前科者特性：男性為主、年齡較長；未婚、不穩定婚姻者居多；嚴重低社會經濟地位。4、在社會控制理論方面，酒醉駕車組與非酒醉駕車組，也有顯著差異，且酒醉駕車組在社會控制方面的確是屬於較薄弱的群體。5、在機會因素方面，不論是在飲酒情境監控、飲酒情境、執法感受、大眾運輸便利或休閒型態方面，均達顯著差異，並吻合日常活動理論之觀點。6、在預測影響酒醉駕車行為因素方面，透過複迴歸統計，發現最具影響力的因素是對酒醉駕車危險了解；其次為犯罪前科紀錄、酒醉駕車法律信念；再依序分別為：教育程度、執法感受、消遣型休閒活動、飲酒情境、飲酒情境監控、同儕附著、以及職業（工）。這顯示社會控制理論與日常活動理論均在本研究中獲得實證支持。
最後，本文建議未來應可在人力、財力支持下，以更多元化之方式來努力試行：1、強化酒醉駕車之法律教育與風險觀念：透過學校、駕訓機構、媒體等強化正確觀念。2、加強年輕族群之宣導。3、加強宣導我國當前酒醉駕車肇事傷亡之嚴重性。4、適性而多元之道安講習：應特別注重溝通，而非僅只於教條式的傳達法律而已，以期使違規駕駛人能成功內化，從內心接受現行的酒醉駕車處罰規範是合理的、並充分地了解酒醉駕車行為所產生的高風險，進一步願意遵守法律規範。5、強化監獄酒醉駕車受刑人之教化課程。6、引藉非正式社會控制：美國經由人民團體母親防制酒醉駕車協會的成立以及非正式社會控制活動投入，以塑造民眾鄙視酒醉駕車行為的社會風氣、規範，進一步大幅降低了酒醉駕車行為，值得我國借鏡。
關鍵字：控制因素、機會因素、酒醉駕車
Abstract
For the past decade, the Government has increased the changes in
the Road Traffic Safety Act Punishment, and there were be serious
implications against drunk driving. Every year there are more than
120,000 police incidents of drunk driving, however, the average annual
injuries and deaths is still as high as 10,000. Therefore, this article adopts
the criminology theories: Control Factors (Social Control Theory, A
General Theory of Crime), and Opportunity Factors (Routine Activity
Theory), to address the impact of drunk driving behavior.
The purpose of this study is to understand the differences between
drunk drivers and non-drunk drivers, and the factors impacting drunk
driving behavior. This research sample was divided into two groups: the
drunk driving group（300 people）and the non-drunk driving group（300
people). The sampling method used was the Infinite Population Sampling.
The survey sample was taken from drivers from the Taipei Motor
Vehicles Supervision Office who were changing one of the following:
driver licenses, motor licenses, license plates, and international driving
licenses, which includes participation in the road safety seminars driving.
At the same time, to increase the questionnaire quality and to validate the
information, special lie detection was used.
The results showed: 1.In regards to basic characteristics, such as, sex,
age, education, marriage, occupation, family income, and the criminal
records, the difference between the drunk driving group and the
non-drunk driving group was enough to show significance. Overall,
drunk driving groups are more inclined to be male, and of low
酒醉駕駛人特性及其影響因素之實證研究
socio-economic status. 2.Drivers who have over 5 drunk driving
infractions are most likely to be male, 40 to 49 years-old, are unmarried
or have unstable marriages, and are of low socio-economic status.
3.Drunk driving prior criminal record the driver characteristics:
male-dominated, older; unmarried and unstable marriage are the majority;
serious low socio-economic status. 4. In according to social control theory,
a significant difference was found between drunk driving groups and
non-drunk driving groups. The Drunk driving group with the social
control proved that they are the most vulnerable group. 5.According to
the opportunity factors, whether in drinking scene control, and the
drinking scene, law enforcement feelings, public transport facilitation or
leisure patterns, have reached significant differences, and are in line with
Routine Activity Theory. 6.In the projections, drunk driving impacted
behavioral factors through the multiple regression statistics. The most
influential factor was the dangers of understanding drunk driving,
followed by criminal record, legal belief drunk driving, education, law
enforcement feelings, leisure activities, the drinking scene, and drinking
scene control, peer attachment, as well as vocation（work). This shows
that Social Control Theory and Routine Activity Theory in the study was
supported.
Finally, this article suggested that in the future we should seriously
regard the follow aspects: 1.To strengthen the views of drunk driving by
education and risk concept, through schools, driving training institutions,
and the media, in order to adjust and correct attitudes. 2.To strengthen
young ethnicity advocacy. 3.To strengthen public awareness of current
英文摘要
drunk driving, the causalities and deaths. 4. Multiple traffic violators
especially need to concentrate on communication. They cannot be allowed
to continuously repeat traffic violations, and it is not in the best interest of
the violators’ fellow commuters to adopt the authoritative role, as we know
when that occurs, the positive affect is minimal to nonexistent. We hope
that through communication and negotiation, the drivers can find it their
hearts to abide by the laws applied to everyone, and that they will fear the
repercussions that could be given to them if they are caught drunk driving.
We hope society can become more enlightened about high-risk drunk
driving behavior and have the willingness to attain an attitude that complies
with all of the traffic laws and regulations. 5.To strengthen drunk driving
prison inmates of correctional programs. 6.Quoting informal social control:
the United States through Mothers Against Drunk Driving Association and
the informal social control activities to shape public disdain of drunk
driving behavior in our society, is to further reduce the drunk driving
behavior, which is worth borrowing and attempting to adapt it to fit our
society.
Key words: factors of control, opportunity factors, drunk driving
參考書目
一、中文部分
內政部警政署（2008）。防制酒醉駕車工作檢討報告。台北：內政部警政署。
內政部警政署（2008）。警察機關全面加強取締酒醉駕車執法工作計畫。台北：內
政部警政署。
內政部警政署（2008）。台閩刑法統計。台北：內政部警政署。
王文科、王智弘（2007）。教育研究法。五南圖書出版有限公司。new window
王保進（2006）。中文視窗版SPSS與行為科學研究。心理出版社。
王保進（2004）。多變量分析：套裝程式與資料分析。高等教育文化事業有限公司。
王邦安（2008）。酒醉駕車決意歷程與預防對策之研究－以高雄地區為例。國立中
正大學犯罪防治研究所碩士論文。
交通部運輸研究所（1988）。駕駛人行為反應之研究—酒精對駕駛人生理影響之實
驗分析。
交通部運輸研究所（1993）。駕駛人行為反應之研究—酒醉駕車對駕駛行為之分析
研究。
胡龍騰、黃瑋螢、潘中道合譯（2003）。研究方法步驟化學習指南。學富文化事業
有限公司。
法務部（2011）。犯罪狀況及其分析。法務部。
周文勇（2002）。青少年犯罪幫派形成之影響因素與特質之研究。中央警察大學博new window
士論文。
周文勇（2006）。刑事司法與犯罪控制。文刊刑事司法-組織、體系與策略，三民書局，頁39～82。
孟維德（2000）。公司犯罪影響因素及其防制策略之實證研究。中央警察大學博士new window
論文。
孟維德（2005）。警察與犯罪控制。五南圖書出版有限公司。new window

孟維德（2007）。從美國堪薩斯市預防巡邏實驗評析見警率與巡邏的效能。中央警new window
察大學警學叢刊，第39卷第4期，頁1～21。
孟維德（2011）。犯罪分析與安全治理。五南圖書出版有限公司。new window
林健陽（1997）。監獄矯治問題之研究。中央警察大學學報，第30期。new window
林健陽（2009）。犯罪矯正專題研究。中央警察大學。
林茂榮、楊士隆（2007）。監獄學—犯罪矯正原理與實務。五南圖書出版有限公司。new window
吳明隆（2008）。SPSS操作與應用變異數分析實務。五南圖書出版有限公司。
吳明隆、涂金堂（2008）。SPSS與統計應用分析。五南圖書出版有限公司。
邱皓政（2008）。量化研究與統計分析。五南圖書出版有限公司。
邱文彬（1999）。「後形式思考的發展及其與人際關係之容忍性、同理心、自我揭new window
露、自主性之關係」。國立政治大學博士論文。
侯崇文、許福生（1997）。治亂世用重典社會意向之研究。犯罪學期刊，第3期，new window
頁43～57。
侯崇文（2000）。青少年偏差行為—社會控制理論與社會學習理論的整合。犯罪學new window
期刊，第6期，頁35～61。
馬傳鎮、陳玉書、蔡田木、楊宗憲（2001）。個人特性和環境因素對青少年中途輟
學與犯罪行為影響之實證研究。中央警察大學犯罪防治學報，第2期，頁29
～54。
許春金、孟維德（1997）。家庭、學校、自我控制與偏差行為。中央警察大學學報new window
第30期，頁225～256。
許春金（2006）。刑事司法之意義、觀點與系統模式。文刊刑事司法-組織、體系new window
與策略，三民書局，頁1～37。
許春金（2010a）。犯罪學。三民書局。
許春金（2010b）。人本犯罪學。三民書局。
許福生（2008）。刑事政策學。三民書局。
許福生（2010）。犯罪與刑事政策學。元照出版有限公司。
黃富源、鄧煌發（1998）。單親家庭與少年非行之探討。中央警察大學警學叢刊，new window

第29卷第3期，頁129～131。
黃富源、范國勇、張平吾（2007）。犯罪學概論。三民書局。
黃徵男（2007）。監獄學。一品出版社。
郭生玉（2005）。心理與教育研究法。精華書局。
張文菘（2008a）。防治酒醉駕車公共危險犯罪之思維。2008年台灣警學與安全管
理研討會論文集，頁683～698。
張文菘（2008b）。公共危險酒醉駕車實務之探討。2008年行政警察實務與學術研
討會論文集，台灣警察專科學校，頁41～66。
張文菘（2009）。酒醉駕車犯罪之探討。2009年第四屆海峽兩岸暨香港、澳門警學研討會論文集，頁102～135。
張文菘（2010a）。酒醉駕駛人特性及其影響因素之研究。2010年台灣警學與安全
管理研討會論文集，頁391～410。
張文菘（2010b）。酒醉駕車行為影響因素之實證研究。中央警察大學犯罪防治學new window
報第11期，頁99～130。
張文菘（2011）。社會控制與酒駕行為之省思。2011年台灣警學與安全管理研討會
論文集，頁409～423。
陳正昌、程炳林、陳新豐、劉子鍵合著（2009）。多變量分析方法－統計軟體應用。
五南圖書出版有限公司。
陳玉書、許春金、馬傳鎮等（2000）。青少年從事特種行業影響因素及防制對策之
研究。行政院青年輔導委員會委託研究。
陳玉書（2004a）。社會治安與犯罪被害恐懼感。中央警察大學犯罪防治學報第5期，new window
頁39～58。
陳玉書（2004b）。青少年從事特種行業機會因素之分析。犯罪學期刊，第7卷第1new window
期，頁16～38。
陳南翰（2003）。低自我控制、性行為、飲酒行為與少年偏差行為之研究。中央警
察大學碩士論文。
陳明志（2008）。酒後駕車者之問題行為症候群研究—以臺北市為例。國立臺北大
學犯罪學研究所碩士論文。
曾幼涵（2000）。解析青少年犯罪率高峰之現象：低自我控制與成熟代溝之再議。
國立政治大學碩士論文。
溫世頌（2006）。心理學辭典。三民書局。
楊慧萍（1997）。兒童衝動性格、自我韌性、家庭因素與違犯行為之相關研究。屏
東師院教育研究所碩士論文。
楊國樞（2007）。社會及行為科學研究法。東華書局。new window
楊士隆、林健陽（2007）。犯罪矯正—問題與對策。五南圖書出版有限公司。new window
榮泰生（2007）。SPSS與研究方法。五南圖書出版有限公司。
蔡德輝、陳超凡、陳玉書（1986）。犯罪學古典學派之探討。中央警察大學警政學
報第10期，頁161～176。
蔡德輝、鄧煌發、蕭銘慶（2004）。飆車青少年之休閒需求及因應對策。中央警察new window
大學警學叢刊，第34卷第4期，頁19～25。
蔡德輝、鄧煌發（2007）。社區犯罪矯正處遇之發展與未來趨勢。文刊於犯罪矯正—new window
問題與對策，五南圖書出版有限公司，頁395～418。
蔡德輝、楊士隆（2008）。犯罪學。五南圖書出版有限公司。
蔡田木（2006a）。我國監禁狀況及其趨勢之分析。中央警察大學犯罪防治學報第7new window
期，頁227～258。
蔡田木（2006b）。機構處遇研究。文刊刑事司法-組織、體系與策略。三民書局，頁445～474。
蔡田木（2008）。外籍人士在臺犯罪狀況及其在監生活之分析。中央警察大學犯罪new window
防治學報第9期，頁165～191。
鄧煌發（2001a）。國中生輟學成因及其與偏差行為相關性之研究。中央警察大學new window
博士論文。
鄧煌發（2001b）。影響臺灣地區近廿年來犯罪問題之社會因素及其未來趨勢預測new window
之研究。中央警察大學學報，第38期，頁183～211。
謝文彥、許春金（2005）。台灣地區未來犯罪趨向之質性研究。中央警察大學犯罪
防治學報第6期，頁1～28。
莊耀嘉（1996a）。犯罪的心理成因：自我控制或社會控制。國家科學委員會研究
彙刊：人文與社會科學，第6卷，第2期，頁235～257。
莊耀嘉（1996b）。兒童品性異常的成因：低自制力與不良休閒活動。犯罪學期刊，new window
第2期，頁125～150。
法務部，http://www.moj.gov.tw，2011。
交通部，http://www.motc.gov.tw，2011。
警政署，http://www.npa.gov.tw，2011。
衛生署，http://www.doh.gov.tw，2011。 
二、英文部分
Argerious, M., McCarty, D., and Blacker, E. (1985). Criminality among individuals arraigned for drinking and driving in Massachusetts. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 46: 525-529.
Beerman, K. A., Smith, M. M., and Hall, R. L. (1988). Predictors of recidivism in DUIs.. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 49: 443-449.
Cavaiola, Alan A., Ph.D. and Wuth, Charles H. (2002). Assessment and treatment of the DWI offender. The Haworth Press.
Cavaiola, A. A. and DeSordi, E. (1999). Locus of Control in A Group of DWI Offenders versus Non-Offenders. Paper presented at the 74th Annual Meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Aprial, Providence, Rhode Island.
Chang Wen Song. (2009). Get Tough on Drunken Driving Offense in Taiwan, Asian Association of Police Studies.
Clarke, R.V. &; Eck, J. (2003). Crime analysis for problem solvers in 60 small steps, U.S. department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.
Cohen, L. &; Felson, M. (1979). Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activity Approach. American Sociological Review, 44：588-608.
Donovan, D. M. (1980). Drinking behavior, personality factors, and high-risk driving. PhD Dissertation, University of Washington.
Donovan, D. M. and Marlatt, G. A. (1982). Personality subtypes among driving-while-intoxicated offenders: Relationships to drinking behavior and driving risk . Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50: 241-249.
Donovan, D. M., Marlatt, G. A. (1983). Personality subtypes among driving-while-intoxicated offenders: Relationships to drinking behavior and driving risk. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50: 241-249.
Donovan, D. M., Marlatt, G. A., and Salzburg, P. M. (1983). Drinking behavior, personality factors and high risk driving: A review and theoretical formulation. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 44: 395-428.
Donovan, D. M., Queisser, H. R., Salzberg, P. M., and Umlauf, R. L. (1985). Intoxicated and bad drivers: Subgroups within the same population of high risk men drivers. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 46: 375-382.
Donovan, D. M., Umlauf, R. L., and Salzberg, P. M. (1990). Bad drivers: Identification of a target group for alcohol-related prevention and early intervention. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 51: 136-141.
Fell, J. C. (1993). Repeat DWI offenders: Their involvement in fatal crashes. In H. D. Utzelmann, G. Berhaus, and G. Kroj (Eds.), Alcohol, drugs, and traffic safety, 92, (pp.1044-1049). Cologne, Germany: Verlag TUV Rheinland GmbH.
Felson, M., ＆ Clarke, R. V. (1998).Opportunity makes the thief: Practical theory for crime prevention. London UK: Home Office Police and Reducing Crime Unit.
Franklin, S. (1989). Demographic and diagnostic characteristics of 108 women convicted of DWI in Allen Country, Indiana. In Women, Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic, Proceedings of the International Workshop. Stockholm, Sweden, ICADTS.
Gerald R. Wheeler ＆ Rodney V. Hissong. (1988). Effects of criminal sanctions on drunk drivers: beyond incarceration. Crime &; Delinquency, 34: 29-42.
Grasmick, H. G., Tittle, C. R., Bursik, R. J.＆ Arneklev, B. J. (1993). Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirsch’s general theory of crime. Journal of research in crime and delinquency.
Gottfredson, M. ＆ Hirschi, T. (1990). A General Theory of Crime, Stanford University Press.
Hindelang, M. J., Gottfredson M. R. &; J. Garofalo. (1978). Victims of personal crime: An empirical foundation for a theory of personal victimization. cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Hirschi, Travis. (1969). Causes of Delinquency, University of California Press.
Jessor, R. (1987). Problem behavior theory, psychosocial development and adolescent problem drinking. British . Journal of Addiction, 82: 331-342.
Jessor, R.and Shirly Jessor. (1977). Problem Behavior and Psychosocial Development, New York: Academic Press.
Jeffrey B. Bumgarner. (2007). Criminal Profiling and Public Policy.
Jonah, B. A. and Wilson, R. J. (1986). Impaired drivers who have never been caught: Are they different from convicted impaired drivers？In Alcohol, Accidents and Injuries, (P-173), SAE Technical Paper. Series 860195. Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers.
Maxfield, M. G. (1987). Lifestyle and routine activity theories of crime: Empirical.
McCord (1984).Drunken driving in longitudinal perspective. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 45: 316-320.
McCormack, A. (1985). Risk for alcohol-related accidents in divorced and separated women. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 46: 240-243.
McMillen, D. L., Pang, M. G., Wells-Parker, E., and Anderson, B. J. (1992). Alcohol, personality traits and high risk driving: A comparison of young, drinking drivers. Addictive Behaviors, 17: 525-532.
Mercer, G. W. (1986). Counterattack Traffic Research Papers, 1985. Victoria, Canada：Ministry of the Attorney General.
Miller, B. A. and Windle, M. (1990). Alcoholism, problem drinking and driving while impaired. In R. J. Wilson and R. E. Mann (Eds.), Drinking and Driving (pp.68-95). New York: Guilford Press.
Murty, K. S. and Roebuck, J. B. (1991). The DUI offender as a social type. Deviant Behavior, 12：451-470.
Nochajski, T. H., Miller, B. A., Wieczorek, W. F., and Whitney, R. (1993). The effects of a drinker-driver treatment program: Does criminal history make a difference？Criminal Justice and Behavior, 20: 174-189.
Nichols, J. L. (1990). Treatment versus deterrence. Alcohol Health ＆ Research World, 14 (1):44-51.
Nichols, J. L. and Ross, H. L. (1990). The effectiveness of legal sanctions in dealing with drinking drivers. In Surgeon General’s workshop on drunk driving. Background papers (pp.93-112). Rockville, MD: Office of the Surgeon General, U. S. Department of Health and Services.
Nolan, Y., Johnson, J. A., and Pincus, A. L. (1994). Personality and drunk driving:Identification of DUI types using the Hogan Personality Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 6:33-40.
Norstrom, T. (1978). Drunken Driving：A tentative causal model. In R. Hauge (Ed.), Drinking and Driving in Scandanavia.Oslo, Norway: Scandanavia University Books.
Parks, K. A., Nochajski, T. H., Wieczorek, W. F., and Miller, B. A. (1996). Assessing alcohol problems in female DWI offenders. In H. Kalant, J. M. Khana,and Y. Israel (Eds.), Advances in Biomedical Alcohol Research (pp.493-496). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.
Paternoster ＆ Bachman. (2001). Classical School: An Essay on Crime and Punishment.
Perrine, M. W. (1990). Who are the drinking drivers？Alcohol Health and Research World, 14: 26-35.
Per-Olof H. Wikström ＆ Kyle Treiber. (2007). The role of self-control in crime causation beyond Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime. European Society of Criminology.
Popkin, C. L., Rudisill, L. C., Waller, P. F., and Geissinger, S. B. (1988). Female drinking and driving: Recent trends in North Carolina. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 20：219-225.
Richard A. Ball and J. Robert Lilly. (1986).The potential use of home incarceration for drunken drivers. Crime &; Delinquency, 224-247.
Selzer, M. L., Vinokur,A., and Wilson, T. D. (1977). A psychosocial comparison of drunken drivers and alcoholics. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 38: 1294-1312.
Selzer, M. L. and Barton, E. (1977). The drunken driver: A psychosocial study. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 2: 239-253.
Shore, E. R. and McCoy, M. L. (1987). Recidivism among female DUI offenders in a Midwestern American city. Journal of Criminal Justice, 15: 369-374.
Shore, E. R., McCoy, M. L.Toonen, L. A., and Kuntz, E. J. (1988). Arrests of woman for driving under the influence. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 49: 7-10.
Simpson, H. M. (1995). Who is the persistent drinking driver？ Part II: Canada and elsewhere. In Strategies for dealing with the persistent drinking driver, Transportation Research Circular, 437: 21-25.
Sutton, L. R. (1993). Assessment of the femal impaired driver: Implications for treatment. In H. D. Utzelman, G. Berghaus, and G. Kroj (Eds.), Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety. Cologne, Germany: Verlag Tuv Rheinland.
Tittle, C.R. (1977). Sanction, fear, and the maintenance of social order. Social Forces, 55, 579-595.
Valerius, M. R. (Ed.) (1989). Women, alcohol, drugs and traffic. In proceeding of the international workship. Stockholm, Sweden: ICADTS.
Vingilis, E. (1983). Drinking drivers and alcoholics: Are they from the same population？ In R. G. Smart, F. B. Glaser, Y. Israel, H. Kant, R. E.Popham, and W. Schmidt (Eds.), Research Advances in Alcohol and Drug Problems, Volume, 7 (pp.229-342). New York: Plenum Press.
Waller, J. A. (1967). Identification of problem drinking among drunken drivers. Journal of the American Medical Association, 200: 114-120.
Wells-Parker, E., Cosby, P. J., and Landrum, J. W. (1986). A typology for drinking diving offenders: Methods for classification and policy implication. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 18: 443-453.
Weinrath, M. and Gartrell, J. (2001). Specific deterrence and sentence length: The Case of Drunk Drivers. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 17: 105-122.
Weinrath, M. (1990). The ignition interlock program for drunk drivers: A multivariate test. Crime &; Delinquency, 1997 43: 42-59.
Wieczorek, W. F., Miller, B. A., and Nochajski, T. H. (1990). Alcohol diagnoses among DWI offenders. The Problem-Drinker Driver Project Research Note, 90-6, Research Institute on Addictions: Buffalo, NY, August:1-2.
Wieczorek, W. F., Miller, B. A., and Nochajski, T. H. (1992). The limited utility of BAC for identifying alcohol-related problems among DWI offenders. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 53: 415-419.
Wilson, R. J. and Jonah, B. A. (1985). Identifying impaired drivers among the general driving population. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 46: 531-537.
Wolfgang, M. E., Figlio, R.M., ＆ Sellin, T. (1972). Delinquency in a birth cohort. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Yoder, R. D. and Moore, R. A. (1973). Characteristics of convicted drunken drivers. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcoho, 34: 927-936.
Zador, P. L. (1991). Alcohol-Related relative risk of fatal driver injuries in relation to driver age and sex. Journal of Studies on Alcoho, 52: 302-310.
Zuckerman, M. (1990). The psychophysiology of sensation seeking. Journal of Personality, 58: 313-345.
http://www.nhtsa.gov, 2009.
http://online.sagepub.com, 2011.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：377（臺灣：372，外國：5） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1614293 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67408234
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上