Alcohol and Traffic
Norwegian Legislation and Practice of the Law.
Ragnar Horn, Attorney at law
From the very beginning road tr a f f i c regulations in Norway
have contained provisions concerning driving while under the influence
of alcohol. The original provision was in the Motor Car Act of 1912,
§ 1 8 , which referring to the driver states: ''he shall be sober while
driving".
This provision was not altered in connection with the f i r s t
Compulsory Abstinence Act of 1916. It was f i r s t altered when the
new Motor Car Act of 1926 came into force, in which § 17 read: "NO
person shall drive a motor vehicle while under the influence of
alcohol." The provision has been altered V times.
The amendment act of 6 th June 1939 giving police the right
to take drivers to a medical practitioner for examination when there
was reason to believe that the driver was under the influence of
alcohol.
A b i l l proposing compulsory blood test was submitted at the
same time. The Ministry of Ju stice assumed that the tests should be
made obligatory.
In 1958 proposals were submitted concerning amendments to
the provisions of the Motor Car Act concerning driving while under
the influence of alcohol and the Act concerning compulsory abstinence
in certain occupations.
In 1952 a committee was appointed to revise the Highway
Code of 1938. As from 195^ the work of these two committees was
coordinated in a road t r a f f i c committee, which in 1959 submitted a
recommendation for a new act relating to road t r a f f i c . A new roads
act was sanctioned 21st June 1963According to the proposal, there w ill, in addition to the
Roads Act and the T raffic Act, be the following laws relating to
tra ffic :
Act
The Motor Car/of 1959- The Motor Car-Liability Act of 1961.
The Transport Act of 1967.
The Act relating to compulsory abstinence will be revised
by the Ministry of Social Affairs.
The principal provision relating to the driver's obligations
is to be found in § 22 of the Road T raffic Act.
That section corresponds to the Motor Car Act, § 17) 2nd
and *+th clauses. The section contains almost the exact wording from
the Motor Car Act, and the expressions "not sobed." and v under the
influence of alcohol" are both used in the description. The provision
relating to the blood-alcohol level was revised in 1959 and one found
no reason to alter it at the present stage. This is associated with
the fact that it proved d iffic u lt to get doctors to take blood te s ts .
At present only medical practitioners are allowed to;,take such
specimens, no other personnel with medical training. It is pointed
out that the police have had to drop charges in cases where drunken
driving was suspected, because it had proved impossible to have a
blood specimen taken.
,
In addition to the provision that doctors may take blood
specimens, the 3 rd clause contains the following " or endeavour
to ascertain drunkenness by other means". One cannot ignore the fact
that methods other than the examinations of specimens of the blood
may prove adequately correct and more expedient than the blood test
system. One therefore wished to provide authority for other methods
of determining whether a driver is under the influence of alcohol,
apart from the blood te s t. However, blood tests have so far proved
very satisfactory and there is no intention o£ abandoning that system
and employing, for example, only the c lin ic a l tests in use today.
More than 3 0 0 0 drivers are convicted of drunken driving
every year in this country. As a rule the court hearings are short
and undramatic and the judgments are passed qiiickly and surely.
In the absence of especially mitigating circumstances, the
penalty is imprisonment. Drivers know this and those convicted appear
to be reconciled with their fa te . They accept the sentence on the
spot or take time for reflection , but rarely appeal. A study of
practice in the Supreme Court will give some idea of what is necessary before one can have any hope of a suspended sentence. 500 cases have
been published in the Norwegian Law Gazette since the war. Cases
under the law relating to compulsory abstinence have not been included,
and of other cases we take only those which have come up for hearing
before the Supreme Court.
The results of these cases were: l ’+l suspended sentences
of imprisonment were altered to unsuspended sentences. 1 sentence
was altered from a fin e, to imprisonment, not suspended.
IV. SO
sentences wer« altered from unsuspended to suspended sentences
of imprisonment. V sentences were altered from fines to suspended
sentences of imprisonment. 1 sentence was altered from an unsuspended
sentence of imprisonment to a fin e. 5*+ suspended sentences of
imprisonment were upheld by the Supreme Court.
Out of the other 230 appeals,most of them were rejected,
i . e . the unsuspended prison sentences were le f t standing.
In 130 cases the Supreme Court fudged the conduct of the
offenders in a manner which differed from/general rule, making the
offender an exceptional legal case in that he was not unconditionally
sentenced to imprisonment. There are particularly three factors
which may lead to this:
71
a. Youth, b. Sickness and/or mental condition.
c. Short driving.
These are the reasons given in 100 cases. 30 cases were
easily c la s s ifie d , while 20 cases were more d if f ic u lt .
The following factors can be deduced:
Youth - 52 cases. Sickness and/or mental condition - 25
cases. Short driving - 23 cases. Long time between offence and
sentence - 8 cases. Alcohol imbibed afterwards - 7 cases. Low
blood-alcohol level - 6 cases. Foreigners - ^ cases. Moped drivingcases.
Old age - 2 cases. Not under the influence of alcohol
(tablets) - 2 cases. Other reasons«-20 cases.
Contitional sentence is usually considered for young
offenders under 19 years of age. The same is the case for persons
over 70.
In the case of i l l health and/or mental conditions, the fact
that serving a prison sentence would reduce the p o ssib ilitie s of a
cure has weighed considerably. Sentences have also been suspended
when the wife of the offender has suffered an illn e s s .
The group "short driving" covers 23 sentences, whichhave
the common feature that the offender only intended to drive a short
distance. When drivinghas been curtailed for other reasons such
as c o llisio n s, running off the road or roadside police checks,
unsupended prison sentences are normally given.
7 sentences apply to cases where alcohol has been imbibed
afterwards. See the rtoad T raffic Act, § 22, 2nd clause. The
provision that the driver of a motor vehicle shall not imbibe alcohol
or any other intoxicating or narcotic substance for the f i r s t six
hours after he has finished driving when he is aware or should be
aware that the driving may result in police investigations.
2 drunken drivers were not sentenced to imprisonment owing
to old age.
A 70 year old man was fined k r . 10.000,- in addition to
a suspended sentence of imprisonment. (He had an income of k r. 6 5 . 000
and capital k r. 4-00.000,-.)
Another man, 77 years of age, was fined kr. 300,- and a
suspended sentence of imprisonment was passed.
It has been said that our penalties in cases of drunken
driving are peculiar. In Norway we generally treat other offenders
very mildly. Owing to our practice of suspended prosecution, an
offender must be most persistent before he iis' admitted to the ranks
of convicted persons and when sentences are passed they are often
suspended.
We shall here see why one single provision from our
legislation has been placed apart.
Obviously, drunken driving is a serious offence which
I requires a severe penalty. In spite of our s t r ic t reaction, drunken
driving is increasing in Norway. Studies show that this is not just
1 a sport for teenagers. Most of the offenders belong in the group
j one normally calls "mature". They are to be found in most occupations,
Iwith a surprisingly high number among professional drivers.
("Unnecessary driving" is also predominant.
In Norway it seems to be accepted that drink and driving
not belong together. The regulations regarding driving while under
the influence are well known to everyone, and also the- penalties.
The severe penalty may in the long run lead to a more serious view
^
being taken of an offence and one must have reason to believe that
this is the case.
Increased roadside checks would almost certainly act as a
deterrent to drunken driving and also lead to greater road safety in
general. The effects of driving or trying to drive vehicle when
intoxicated are many/'serious. Apart from the aforementioned
provisions concerning penalties and the right of recourse for insurance
companies i f the driving results in damage or injury, there are also
provisions concerning the revoke of licenses. This is probably the
reaction which has the greatest general preventive e ffe c t. The
purpose of the penalties for drunken driving is to prevent people
from combining drink and driving.
The Motor Car Act of 1912 had the provisions relating to
the revoke of licenses in § 16. The authority was vested in the
police and licenses could be revoked when the driver was convicted
for offences against the law or associated regulations, or when he
was no longer deemed to be in possession of the qualities requisite
for a driver. The License could be revoked for ever or for a given
period of cime.
The provisions relating to the revoke of licenses in § 18
of the Motor Car Act of 1926 were more comprehensive than tho:-e in
the previous § 16. In addition to the contens of that section, § 18
expressly stated that penal offences against the Act of 1 9 16 relating
to compulsory abstinence in certain occupations, could give grounds
for revoking the license. Furthermore, the police were to revoke
the license when they found that the driver had been intoxicated
while driving. I f he was sentenced for that reason, the license
was to be revoked for ever.
By the amendment of the Act dated 6th June 1930) several of
the provisions in § 18 were made more stringent, amongst other things
the police were given a more general authority to take a driver's
license away before a case had been settled by a sentence or by a
fine in lieu of prosecution. I f the license was to be taken away for
more than l^f days, the decision had to be confirmed by the Court.
Drivers licenses are revoked by the police sometimes as the
automatic res\ilt of a driver being sentenced for drunken driving,
sometimes because the driver has been sentenced for other offences,
and sometimes in cases which are le f t to the discretion of the
police. In the new Transport Act of 19&7 we find the provisions
for revoking licenses in § 33- Apart from the general provisions
a driver sentenced for drunken driving shall have the license revoked
6
for at last
one. year. The Transport Act § ^^2 contains the basic
provision for drunken drivers, repeeting the old blo«id alcoholconsentration of o,5 0/00 .
IV. 33