在整體道路交通事故中，酒駕事故雖只佔少數比例，卻引起高比例的傷亡，其所伴隨的社會成本亦遠超出想像。酒駕是個值得關注的議題，每減少一件酒駕事故，便能間接的節省龐大的社會成本支出。

我國雖經歷多年的酒駕法律修法，卻缺乏個別酒駕政策的執行效果分析。本論文利用民國98-105年道路交通事故調查報告表的資料，分析此期間三次酒駕修法的施行效果；三次酒駕修法分別為民國100年12月2日刑法185條之3款、民國102年3月1日的道路交通管理處罰條例第35條、民國102年6月13日刑法185條之3款及道路交通安全規則第114條；我們針對個別酒駕政策，我們使用新政策執行前後的三個月、半年及一年為觀察區間，探討酒駕修法對酒駕事故的數量、死傷人數及酒駕者酒測值分配實證分析，評估歷年個別酒駕政策的施行效果。研究結果顯示三次酒駕政策 修法的施行效果 如下：提高重罰以及首次將酒測值納入刑法，致使各政策實行一年後除減少了飲酒人數、酒駕事故比例及事故傷亡人數外，亦改變了駕駛人的飲酒傾向，重度飲酒的駕駛人顯著減少，而輕度及中度飲酒的駕駛人則顯著增加。

Although the drunk driving accident only accounts for small percentage, it causes a high proportion of casualties in the overall road traffic accidents and the social costs associated with them is far beyond imagination.
This thesis examines the effects of three statutory changes in drunk driving laws by using the A1 and A2 Road Traffic Accident Investigation Report of National Policy Agency during 2009 to 2016. The three statutory changes are the Article 185-3 of Criminal Code in 2011, the Article 35 of Road Traffic Regulations on Administrative Penalties in 2013, the Article 114 of Road Traffic Safety Regulations in 2013, respectively. The observation intervals of three months, half year, and one year are used before and after the implementation date of each statutory change. The number of drunk driving accidents, the number of casualties, and the distribution of alcoholic drinkers' BrAC level are examined to evaluate the effect of each statutory change. The empirical analysis shows that the more severe the penalties, the lower the BrAC, the number of the drunk drivers in the traffic accidents, the ratio of daily drunk driving accidents, and the number of casualties after each statutory change. Furthermore, the BrAC distribution of the drunk drivers have shifted leftward after the Criminal Law amendment at June of 2013. That is, the number of heavily drunk driver is significantly reduced, while the number of mild/moderate drinking drivers is significantly increased.

中文文獻：
1.李佩玲（2016），「臺灣酒駕政策與酒駕事故之關聯性研究」，碩士論文，國立中央大學產業經濟研究所。
2.胡守任、魏建宏、羅淑賢、朱禮伶（2008），「酒後駕車之取締數與酒測值對交通肇事 之影響-以臺南市為例」，97 年道路交通安全與執法研討會論文集，頁 91-103。
3.周文生、陳鴻斌、田偉仁（2001），「道路交通事故調查報告表修訂計畫之研究」，90年道路交通安全與執法研討會論文集，頁1-16。
4.郭佩霞（2015），「酒後駕車加重處罰立法前後執法與判決結果比較分析―以大臺北地區為例」，碩士論文，中央警察大學交通管理學系碩士班。
5.蔡中志（2010），「酒後駕車肇事防制對策之研究」，交通學報，第 10 卷第 1 期，39~58 頁。
6.蔡中志、洪嘉臨、宋宗哲（2011），「高速公路 A1 類酒後駕車肇事與執法強度及社會經濟關聯性之研究」，100年道路交通安全與執法研討會論文集，頁1-22。
英文文獻：
1.Compton, R. P., Blomberg, R. D., Moskowitz, H., Burns, M., Peck, R. C, & Fiorentino, D. (2002), ”Crash risk of alcohol-impaired driving”, Paper presented at the Proceedings of Alcohol, Drugs & Traffic Safety - T 2002: 16th International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs & Traffic Safety, August 4-9, 2002, Montreal, Canada.
2.Carpenter, C. (2004), ”How do zero tolerance drunk driving laws work ? “ ,Journal of Health Economics, 23(1), 61-83.
3.Chan, Yun-Shan, Chen, Chin-Shyan, Huang Lanying, and Peng ,Yu-I (2017), “Sanction changes and drunk-driving injuries/deaths in Taiwan.” Accident Analysis and Prevention, 107(2017)102-109. (SSCI). MOST 102-2410-H-305-001.
4.Connor, J., Norton, R., Ameratunga, S., & Jackson, R. (2004), ”The contribution of alcohol to serious car crash injuries.”Epidemiology,15(3), 337-344.
5.Eisenberg, D. (2001), ”Evaluating the Effectiveness of a 0.08% BAC Limit and Other Policies Related to Drunk Driving.” Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, Stanford University, 1-51.
6.Fell, J. C., & Voas, R. B. (2006), ”The effectiveness of reducing illegal blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limits for driving: Evidence for lowering the limit to. 05 BAC.”Journal of Safety Research,37, 233-243.
7.Hansen, B. (2015), ” Punishment and deterrence: Evidence from drunk driving.” The American Economic Review, 105(4), 1581-1617.
8.McLean, A. J., & Holubowycz, O. T. (1980), ” Alcohol and the risk of accident involvement.” In Alcohol, drugs and traffic safety. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety, Stockholm , 15-19.
9.Morsink, P., Oppe, S., Reurings, M. and Wegman, F. (2005), ”Sunflower+6: Development and application of a footprint methodology for the sunflower+6 countries.” Leidschendam, SWOV: 125
10.Peden, M., Scurfield, R., Sleet, D., Mohan, D., Hyder, A.A., Jarawan, E., Mathers, C. (2004), “World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention. “World Health Organization (WHO), Geneva.
11.Phillips, D. P., & Brewer, K. M. (2011), ” The relationship between serious injury and blood alcohol concentration (BAC) in fatal motor vehicle accidents: BAC= 0.01% is associated with significantly more dangerous accidents than BAC= 0.00%.” Addiction, 106(9), 1614-1622.
相關網站：
1.中華民國內政部警政署 https://ba.npa.gov.tw/npa/stmain.jsp?sys=100
2.衛生福利部統計處 https://dep.mohw.gov.tw/DOS/mp-113.html
3.立法院法律系統 https://lis.ly.gov.tw/lglawc/lglawkm
4.全國法規資料庫 http://law.moj.gov.tw/
5.運輸安全網站資料系統 http://talas-pub.iot.gov.tw/default.aspx