Midsummer morning moral: the problem is not beer, but individuals for whom rules do not exist

When a drunk driver with a child in the car crashed into a public bus in Jēkabpils recently while fleeing from the police, there was outrage in the community. And rightly so. Because this story had everything – alcohol, fleeing from the police, driving without a driver's license, without an MOT and technical inspection, and a child in the cabin. In other words, the man was ready to risk not only his own life and the lives of other road users, but also the life of his own child.

Recidivists are not random offenders

After such news, one gets the impression that the roads of Latvia are full of such individuals. Open a news portal – a drunk driver with a blood alcohol level of 3 per mille rams a tram. The next day – someone without a license hits a pedestrian. A few days later – fleeing from the police. One gets the impression that a “normal driver” in Latvia is a rare occurrence.

However, the data shows otherwise. According to statistics available to the Latvian Motor Insurance Bureau, the proportion of vehicles driving without a valid MTPL is less than one percent. In addition, several studies we have conducted so far show that approximately a quarter of those who participate in traffic without a valid MTPL are simultaneously without a license, technical inspection or are driving under the influence. If we take into account that on July 1, 2025, there were 890,373 valid driver's licenses in Latvia, it can be calculated that more than 881469, or 99% of drivers comply with what the law requires of them. However, there is a small group of people who pose a disproportionately high threat to others. Even if we assume that this group is 1%, then we are talking about less than 9000 drivers here. This is the classic “spoon of tar in a barrel of honey” problem. Only in this case, the spoon is very small, but the tar is especially smelly.

And yet, even if someone thinks that it is a matter of a few repeat offenders or a couple of unfortunate violations, it is worth remembering the recently published data of the State Police. This year, a driver was identified who had committed 436 traffic violations last year. That is more than one violation per day! This example shows very well that a large part of the “black” traffic safety statistics is not made up of hundreds of thousands of different drivers who made a mistake once. It is made up of a relatively small group of people who come into the system’s sights again and again. That is why a violation points system has been operating in Latvia for a long time – the state has recognized that the biggest risk in traffic is not one unfortunate violation, but a pattern of behavior that repeats itself.

Why can't every recidivist be assigned their own police officer?

Then a seemingly logical question arises. If there are only a few thousand of these problematic people, why not assign each of them their own police officer? The answer is simple. Because it is not one police officer per person. 24-hour surveillance requires shifts, holidays, vacations, transportation and documentation. As a result, continuous surveillance of a few thousand people would require a whole system with several thousand employees. Moreover, this would not solve the main problem. These people are not random violators. They are often professional specialists in “circumvention of the system”. Several years ago LTAB, analyzing accidents caused by uninsured vehicles and speed camera statistics, came to an interesting conclusion – some violators know very well where the speed cameras are located and where the raids are taking place. That is, they are not making mistakes, but purposefully planning their criminal activities.

That is why the punitive instruments used for years do not always work. Take away the license - the person continues to drive. Give a fine - they do not pay. Take away the car - they find another one. In some cases, a person simply disappears from the legal economic circle and lives by his own rules.

People change when the consequences are immediate.

One solution to prevent this could be a specialized probation program for repeat offenders. Not another sentence and trial, but a period of supervision of several months (or even years), in which the police, probation, psychologist, narcologist and social services work together. In practice, this would mean regular alcohol tests, random checks, addiction assessment, a behavior correction program, a formal employment requirement, a penalty payment schedule and work with the family.

The most important principle is simple – not that there will be a trial in six months, but that if you don’t show up for a test today, there will be consequences tomorrow. In turn, a person who complies with the imposed restrictions is given the opportunity to gradually return to normal life. Such an approach is not a theory. In the US state of South Dakota, there is a program called “24/7 Sobriety”, where people with alcohol violations must regularly take alcohol tests or be under constant supervision. Studies show a decrease in repeated violations. Similar results have also been achieved in specialized courts that work with drivers who have been repeatedly caught driving under the influence of alcohol. In some studies, recidivism in these programs has decreased by as much as 50%. There are already the first seeds of such an approach in Latvia. Behavioral correction programs are becoming increasingly popular, but it is clear that a few lectures alone are not enough. Follow-up monitoring is also necessary.

However, there is another inconvenient truth. The family usually knows that a person is driving without a license. The neighbors know. Friends know. Sometimes the entire parish knows. Therefore, reducing recidivism is not just a police task. And it is not a story of public shaming. On the contrary, humiliation often only strengthens the “me versus the system” mindset. The more society ostracizes a person, the easier it is for him to find excuses to continue living outside the rules. The goal should be different. To create a social protective barrier around a person, where family, employer and community stop being silent accomplices and become part of the security system.

At the same time, positive incentives are also needed. If a person has not been caught violating the law for a year, has completed treatment or a behavioral correction program, works legally and pays fines, they should gradually reduce the restrictions. If they violate it again, they should return to a stricter regime. After all, the problem on Latvian roads is not 890 thousand drivers. The problem is a few thousand people who have lived for years in the belief that the rules only apply to everyone else. As long as we continue to fight only with the consequences, not the causes, from time to time we will read the news about another drunk driver who runs away from the police without a license, without an MTPL and without common sense. Sometimes alone. Sometimes with a child in the car.