終身吊銷駕駛執照制度之實施成效評估—被吊照人吊照前後開車實證分析

Abstract

交通事故之發生固然造成受害者生命、身體及財產上的實害，對於肇事致人死亡或受傷而逃逸，或酒精過量致人死亡或重傷者，在被處以終身吊銷駕駛執照之情況下，其法益的削減包括刑事罰、民事罰以及行政罰 (終身吊照)等亦不可謂不重。民國90年10月大法官會議曾針對肇事逃逸被終身吊銷駕駛執照之案例做出解釋，明確指出本項處分與憲法並無牴觸，惟終身吊照是否影響人民之基本權？或確實使肇事者遠離道路不再開車？則有近一步探究之必要。本研究為探討終身吊照之效果及其對被吊照人之衝擊，針對終身吊照者進行二階段之調查，有效樣本計768位，結果顯示其中23.4% 之受訪者，吊照後與吊照前之開車情況幾乎完全相同，59.8% 之受訪者明顯降低開車頻率，完全不再開車者僅16.8%。整體而言，被終身吊照者平均降低了65.7% 之開車里程。就與吊照前幾乎完全相同開車之受訪者而言，其開車之目的主要在於工作、通勤、拜訪親友及接送小孩；就明顯降低開車頻率之受者而言，其開車主要為了工作及接送小孩。羅吉特迴歸結果顯示，是否遵守終身吊照處罰而不開車之程度，主要與個人屬性 (年齡、所得)、處罰情況 (入監、吊照長度) 以及開車需要(工作、通勤、購物)有關；年長者及低所得者較遵守終身吊照不再開車之規定；被判入監者較多維持與吊照前幾乎完全相同之開車頻率。Generalized Estimating Equations (GEEs) 模式結果亦顯示，個人屬性 (年齡、所得、駕照種類)、處罰情況 (入監、高額民事賠償)以及開車需要 (工作、通勤、休閒旅遊及接送小孩)、開車頻率、吊照、吊照x駕照種類，皆明顯影響整體之開車里程。綜合而言，終身吊照確實具有使肇事者遠離道路不再開車之一般效果，但也可能產生不公平的處分結果，使弱勢者更形弱勢。

Car accidents bring many damages including death, injury and property loss to the victims. On the other side, in the case of hitting-and-running and causing death/or injury or drunk-driving and causing death/or serious injury, there are many kinds of penalties for offenders including criminal punishment, civil compensation and administrative lifetime driver license revocation (ALLR). In October 2001, the Taiwan constitutional court pointed out that ALLR does not violate the Constitution. Considering driving is a necessity of living, it should be further considered whether ALLR has impacted human basic rights, such as the rights of moving freedom, the right to work and the right of existence, and kicked those illegal drivers out of the road. This study investigated the effectiveness of ALLR and its impact on offenders, based on a two-stage survey of 768 offenders. It was found that after ALLR had been imposed, 23.4% of these offenders were still driving almost the same as before, 59.8% drove significantly less frequently, and only 16.8% of the offenders gave up driving completely. Overall, 65.7% of the offenders’ annual mileage driven was reduced by ALLR punishment. For those offenders who drove at almost the same driving frequency, working, commuting, visiting relatives/or friends, and driving kids were the main activities compelling them to continue driving. However, for those offenders whose driving was significantly reduced, the necessity of traveling to work and driving kids were their main reasons for continuing to drive. Results of logistic regression models showed that offenders’ compliance with ALLR was significantly correlated with their personal characteristics (age, income), penalty status (incarceration, duration of ALLR), and the need to drive for working, commuting and shopping. Elderly and low-income offenders were more likely to abide by the ALLR restriction. Offenders who had been incarcerated were more likely to drive the same as before ALLR when compared to those offenders who had not been incarcerated. The study results of Generalized Estimating Equations (GEEs) model also showed that personal characteristics (age, income, license category), penalty status (incarceration, high civil compensation), driving needs (work, commuting, traveling and driving kids), indicator of group membership, indicator of post-ALLR, and the interaction of license category together with post-ALLR were all significantly associated with the mileage driven. It was found that ALLR is fairly effective in keeping offenders off the road, but it can reduce their ability to make a living, resulting in the less fortunate becoming more helpless.