"Confiscate drunk people's cars"?
(Baonghean) - It can be said that in recent days, the draft regulation on "taking away drunk drivers' vehicles" (Recommendation to confiscate vehicles if the driver has an alcohol concentration of over 80mg/100ml of blood or over 0.4mg/ml of breath by the National Traffic Safety Committee) has created a "reasoning fever" on forums with opinions that are sometimes 180 degrees opposite to each other.o.
For a long time now, when a new policy that affects people's lives is about to be born, public opinion has a chance to "show off" its... viewpoints. Honestly speaking, no matter from which angle we look at it, it is not too difficult to realize that the democratic spirit through the story of "giving comments on draft documents" is increasingly expanding. Intelligence, responsibility, and even individual and community viewpoints are aroused in a multi-dimensional and quite strong way. There are even policies born from "cold room ideas" such as "flat chest driving" or "meat after eight hours" that did not make it to "a full month" and were forced to accept their premature death because the practical application of the document was empty. The discovery and the death of this type of document all originated from public opinion.
Back to the draft policy of confiscating vehicles that is causing controversy in public opinion. It must be said that rarely has a propaganda campaign about the harmful effects of alcohol been "popularized" so effectively. The side effects of this still-in-development regulation spread faster than expected. People tacitly acknowledge that alcohol is the number one factor in traffic law violations. Public opinion is analyzing and dissecting every detail of the problem in many directions, of course not excluding the tendency to "nitpick". A famous newspaper just had the headline "The car doesn't know how to drink alcohol, so why was it confiscated?". More "gallantly", the Chairman of the Hanoi Transport Association also bet the Vice Chairman of the National Traffic Safety Committee, Mr. Khuat Viet Hung, that if the proposal to "confiscate vehicles" reduces traffic accidents by 50%, he will use his own money to give a monthly salary bonus of... 7 million VND!
However, the voice of the “other side” seems calmer: Mr. Nguyen Sy Cuong (Standing member of the Law Committee of the National Assembly) confided: “In our country, running red lights and entering prohibited roads seems to be no longer common, but to put it harshly, it has become a “national disaster”. Just standing at an intersection and counting, you will see that there are too many violations. As long as the penalty is low and the current situation of widespread violations still exists, other solutions proposed will not solve the problem”. This person also did not hesitate to share, “Regarding the proposal of the National Traffic Safety Committee, in my opinion, confiscation of vehicles should be applied to cases of repeat offenses, but for first-time violations, it should not be applied immediately.
To implement this proposal, if necessary, the law must be amended, because our law was issued at a time when typical situations had not yet appeared. Now, when situations arise in society, if necessary, they must be amended accordingly. Sometimes, after amendments have been made, if necessary, they must be amended again. On the forums, there are also opinions that "vote in favor" but are concerned about its feasibility. They fear that this heavy penalty will be a fertile ground for negativity to arise among the forces directly performing the task. A means of transport is often a large asset, and confiscating the entire vehicle will certainly make violators "run away" out of regret. What if they stop "calling relatives" and choose the "fifty-fifty option"? We do not deny that these are well-founded concerns.
According to a survey by a reputable online newspaper that was just published, as of the afternoon of March 7, 17% of readers agreed with the solution of confiscating vehicles because human life is paramount. 29% of readers said that it should not be confiscated because it is too large an asset and often does not belong to the violator. The solution of only imposing heavy fines and revoking the driver's license for 1-3 years was most supported by readers: 54%.
We think that, to argue does not mean to argue. To confiscate or not to confiscate a drunkard's vehicle is a very serious issue, not something that can be "bet on a month's salary" like "evening sports". First of all, in terms of viewpoint, we think that we need to support the National Traffic Safety Committee in its efforts to find a strong solution. The confiscation plan may not be approved by the head of the Government, but it is the "hardest" message ever. "We cannot have a peaceful country where 9,000 people die each year from traffic accidents" (Minister Dinh La Thang's words). For many years, "the sanctions are not strong enough" has been on everyone's lips. However, when strong sanctions have not yet been revealed, they have encountered no small amount of "arguments".
Well, if the word “confiscation” makes it too difficult for the authorities, then let’s not confiscate but “temporarily detain”. When the violator has enough money to pay the fine, we will respectfully invite them to “redeem” the vehicle. Is that okay, or are you still wondering “how can a vehicle drink alcohol, so why detain it???”. As for the borrowed vehicle, oh, a borrowed vehicle, so what? If the borrowed vehicle doesn’t cause an accident, right? If you lend a vehicle, it means you agree to accept all risks (even accidents). For those who are afraid of getting involved, the best thing to do is, “When we meet, shake hands and greet each other/ Whatever you say, please don’t borrow the vehicle”, right?
By the way, keeping drunk people's vehicles not only brings positive changes to traffic problems but also to many other evils. Most fights and rapes involve alcohol. All debates are probably also about safety. Safety is one of the measures of civilized society. While we are discussing the issue of confiscating vehicles, traffic accidents are still regularly "confiscating" dozens of lives every day. How pitiful!
The author of this article believes that anyone who is drunk and still driving should be “arrested immediately, without much talk”, the vehicle should be firmly impounded, the next step is to make it public, then fine, and fine heavily. The fine is almost equivalent to confiscating the vehicle! Without significant measures, it is difficult to hope for significant results. Don’t be afraid, for the sake of your life and the lives of many others, “drinkers” must accept “sacrificing” alcohol and beer. If you know this but still cannot “quit” drinking, then it is right that the vehicle “dies”!
Nguyen Khac An