Why do Brazilians Ignore Anti-Drunk Driving Law?

This is an excellent discussion. Often times when leaving Manaus I can count the drunk drivers as they swerve on AM-060. I think the problem here is lack of police presence outside Manaus. Inside Manaus your guess is as good as mine.

Something tells me if they enforced the strict laws of the US here prisons would have to be built to house all the 4x offenders.

The USDOT recently recognized the legal limit as .05 which basically means over the next 15 years the legal limit will be lowered across all 50 states. Further, some states go as far as stating keys in the car PERIOD warrant a DWI/DUI. A friend of mine was given a DWI even though he was WALKING to a gas station but had been driving earlier without admitting it. He is now in prison for 5 years on his 4th DWI - obviously has problems. In Minnesota 1st time offenders can get special license plates as a punishment - they start with a D. Basically these give police probable cause to stop you with or without warrant. 2nd and 3rd time offenders mandatory after license suspension is lifted. Imagine driving to work? Embarrassing!

Anything that is operated for a means of transportation is subject to DWI laws / this includes lawn mowers and YouTube has plenty of them.

It all boils down to the constitution, which states that no-one has to provide evidence against him. This is interpreted in such a way that the breathalizer test is considered "proof against yourself".

As long as you are able to pay the fine for NOT taking the breathalizer test, there is absolutely nothing that can be done against drunk drivers, unless they actually cause an accident.

All it needs is an attitude change of the Supreme Court.

usmc_mv wrote:

In Minnesota 1st time offenders can get special license plates as a punishment - they start with a D. Basically these give police probable cause to stop you with or without warrant. 2nd and 3rd time offenders mandatory after license suspension is lifted. Imagine driving to work? Embarrassing!

That would be totally impossible here. Personally I don't believe that embarrassing people is a humane punishment:

Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Actually, I think it's ridiculous.

Let me clarify - aggravated DWI on a first offense in Minnesota will get you the special plates. That basically means you most likely hit another car or were in an accident. 2nd and 3rd mandatory - obviously they didn't learn the first time around.

Truthfully, I have seen the cycle. Most first time offenses escalate into a loss of license which truthfully in my opinion is the way it should be. No need for special plates just revoke the license permanently and  add the letter "B" to the back of the new state ID which prohibits those from buying alcohol at  any establishment.

1st time offenses (non-aggravated) should be punished but should be given a chance to change. I don't want my family driving on the road with repeat drunk drivers though. I'm pretty sure most drivers would agree with me. And yes, when I saw the special plates late at night I kept my distance from the car, along with everyone else.

IMHO, revoking the license is indeed the way to go, but as long as the STF doesn't change their ruling, be careful.

Oh, and an unpaid fine in Brazil is just that, an unpaid fine. Prescribes in 5 years.

Just to add my two cents worth...

Revoking and suspending licences here in Brazil is futile, most drivers would simply drive without a licence. This is proven by the alarming number of drivers that never even bother to obtain a licence in the first place or that purchase counterfeit licences. There has to be a better way found. Even an ignition interlock device which measures breath alcohol and disables the car (as used in the USA) wouldn't work here since offenders would just take somebody else along to blow in the darned thing.

As far as the "D" licence plates, they are a valid option. They are not intended to degrade the offender in any way, but rather to identify him/her to other motorists who have a right and the necessity of knowing which vehicles sharing the road with them that they should keep their distance from. Far too many times here in Brazil we see cases where drunk drivers who are repeated offenders get involved in accidents that could have been avoided by their victims, had they only had some kind of warning that this particular individual represented a danger. Constitutional rights are all well and good, but in my opinion one's constitutional rights end where they infringe on the constitutional rights of another. The fundamental right in the Federal Constitution is that of Art. 5 The right to life. Everything else takes second place. That said I think that it would be extremely difficult even for a Brazilian to make a strong case that a "D" on his licence plate constituted degrading treatment. Even so, Art. 5 II states that noone shall be forced to do anything if not by virtue of law. Art. 5 III is the item for degrading treatment so the simple passage of a law would make that possible and eliminate any constitutional argument. Still the right to life is superior to all of the rest since it is in the main body of the particular Article.

With regard to not providing evidence against oneself this is simply an interpretation of the Federal Constitution made by the STF. It is a stretch at best to include anything like the breath or blood test. "Art. 5 LXII - the prisoner shall be informed of his rights, among them the right to remain silent, being secured to him the right to assistance by family and of a lawyer." The letter of the law is clear REMAIN IN SILENCE. The Supreme Court has simply given this an overly broad interpretation which is absolutely opposite to the interpretation of similar constitutional protection in the US Constitution and Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, where it means just that, remain silent and not give any self incriminating statements.

Brazilians seem to think that their Constitution is written in stone when in truth any Constitution must be a living and breathing document that is subject to change with the times, by Constitutional Amendments. Until it is amended to read "noone shall be compelled to provide any incriminating evidence against himself", the Supreme Court should follow the letter of the law, but there they sit remembering all the times they themselves took a nip and got behind the wheel of a car. So they cover their own asses too with their broad interpretation.

A lot needs to change in Brazil in terms of changing the public's disregard for life and safety of innocent people when it comes to drunk driving. Will that happen anytime soon........ not a bloody chance!

  Cheers, 
  William James Woodward – Brazil Animator, Expat-blog Team

In Europe and in Brazil too, we are way beyond witchhunts. A person commits a crime, is punished and with that, society is done with it. A person is considered innocent untill proven guilty by a court of law. Putting a big D on a license plate stigmatizes a person who is considered guilty, untill proven innocent.

A D on a license plate, to me is just like a big yellow star on your clothes with a big J on it, and I have friends and family that proudly wore their number tattoo's on thier forearms.

This is something from the middle ages, and I suppose is still used in countries like Sudan, Iraq and Afghanistan.

wjwoodward wrote:

They are not intended to degrade the offender in any way, but rather to identify him/her to other motorists who have a right and the necessity of knowing which vehicles sharing the road with them that they should keep their distance from.

Of course they are degrading. As I said, a person is considered innocent untill proven guilty, when proven guilty he is punished and that is it. Putting a D on a car says, "this guy is guilty".

Besides, it is a principle of penal law in the developed world that the punishment shall not transcend the person that actually committed the crime. No-one knows who is actually driving the car with a D on the plate. This is not America where every family member has a car, not counting the spare car for when one breaks down.

wjwoodward wrote:

The fundamental right in the Federal Constitution is that of Art. 5 The right to life.

All fundamental rights are subject to the principle layed down in article 1:
Art. 1º A República Federativa do Brasil, formada pela união indissolúvel dos Estados e Municípios e do Distrito Federal, constitui-se em Estado Democrático de Direito e tem como fundamentos:
III - a dignidade da pessoa humana;"

Life can only be important if it is lived in dignity. Being stigmatized for something you did "some time back" clearly offends human dignity, as you are labelling someone for something they did. If you put a D on a car, why not tattoo "THIEF" on the forehead of someone that stole something, or "DRUG DEALER" (although that would probably be considered advertising) or "WIFE BEATER".

The idea criminal law as "punishment" clearly doesn't work. American prisons are full of repeat offenders, as are Brazilian prisons. In the netherlands, instead of building more prisons, we are demolishing prisons. It seems that helping the offender integrate into society actually prevents them from committing new crimes, whereas stigmatisation by society pushes a person into becomming a repeat offender.

wjwoodward wrote:

Art. 5 II states that noone shall be forced to do anything if not by virtue of law. Art. 5 III is the item for degrading treatment so the simple passage of a law would make that possible and eliminate any constitutional argument.

No, because that would be unconstitutional, as it infringes incision III. Even a constitutional emendment, allowing for the D plate would be considered unconstitutional. The fact that incision II states that "noone shall be forced to do anything if not by virtue of law" doesn't mean that the legislator can pass a law that blatatly infringes incision III. If that where true, a law could be passed allowing for capital punishment, even though the constitution expressly forbids that.

wjwoodward wrote:

The letter of the law is clear REMAIN IN SILENCE. The Supreme Court has simply given this an overly broad interpretation which is absolutely opposite to the interpretation of similar constitutional protection in the US Constitution and Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Yes, it is indeed a very broad interpretation. IMHO ridiculous, especially in the case of the breathalizer test. It's simple. Driving is a privilege not a right. In order the be able to use the privilege, one must obide by the rules, and one of the rules is to subject yourself to the breathalizer test. One would not be generating proof against himself, but simply show that one is abiding by the rules that alow you to use the privilege to drive a car.

Just one las mention of the D plate. This is Brazil, NOT the US. Can you imagine the sheer possibility for police corruption that a D plate would bring along?

I think there should be more police presence on the roads. Hardly ever do I see police on the roads here in Sao Paulo... although it might be because there are just too many cars. But people know they can drive recklessly and get away with it. People run red lights and swerve into other lanes all day long, without even a second thought. If police were stationed in places and actually reprimanded people for driving recklessly (drunk or not) then people would realize there are repercussions for their actions. As of now, there practically are no persuasive actions to encourage safe driving. Sometimes they have road blocks set up at night, but the one's I've been through didn't even make us roll down the window or say anything to us. They looked in the car with a flashlight and let us pass. More police presence on the roads, and actually stopping people and giving FINES to reckless drivers will encourage them to drive safer. When they realize they have to pay money that they don't have to spare, then they will be more careful. Same goes with drunk drivers. If they know they don't have to pay the money, or it is a very small fine, there is no incentive to drive sober.

I do not think there need to be an incentive to drive sober. Driving is a privilege, not a God given right. Better education during the bureaucratic DETRAN application process might be the way to go. I am willing to bet 16 year old kids in the US that are going through the driving lessons know more about the affects of drunk driving than adults in Brazil do. I can almost guarantee they do not show pictures of accidents here, have simulators that show what it is like to drive drunk or text and drive. And guess what? They don't need a psychological exam. Maybe DETRAN needs the psychological exam? What is obviously impossible to teach here is the consequences. Maybe if they showed people actually go to jail or someones skull cracked open because they crashed their motorcycle drunk here then people might think twice. However, the regard for human life in Manaus has yet to be seen. (on the road)

As far as police corruption - I agree not to put the D on license plates BUT only for that reason - police abuse of power.

Have you ever seen a drivers test here in Brazil. It goes like this:

1) remove car from parking spot.
2) drive 25 meters, stop atcrossing
3) drive 50 meters, go left
4) drive 50 meters, go left
5) drive 50 meters, stop car to swich examiner
6) drive 150 meters (get to 3rd gear if you're lucky)
7) go left
8) drive 50 meters, go left
9) drive 125 meters
10) park car

This is NOT a joke, that is the actual drivers test my brother in law did. In some places the driving test is actually done on a parking lot (like in Jacarepagua on the parking lot of the circuit.

Brazilian drivers are a danger to everyone, even without alcohol.

Tooooooooo funny, but sadly true about the driving test. It's strange in a country where the written test is actually rather difficult that the practical test should be so ridiculous.

Regarding showing drinking drivers the consequences of their actions, I'd be in favor of a form of "shock therapy" used in some countries where those convicted of drunk driving are required to watch an autopsy of an accident victim. This is generally something that nobody ever forgets.

The main probem in lack of enforcement of traffic laws, apart from Lei Seca and documentation blitzes the Brazilian government at all levels has opted for either outside bodies such as CET in São Paulo, BHTrans in Belo Horizonte and others to do fines and generally these are not for moving violations other than speeding or running red lights (electroni enforcement).

Police forces in other countries are charged with the duty of traffic enforcement and issuing fines, so they have an incentive to fine for moving violations. Generally speaking too, there is usually some kind of revenue sharing system that sees part of the revenues generated by fines goes back to the police force that issues the fines, this helps fund the policing services. In Brazil this does not happen and police are so few in numbers that they don't have the time for traffic enforcement anyway.

Regarding breath and blood testing, I think it is redundant as long as the STF continues with its overly broad interpretation of "permanecer em silêncio" as "não dar prova contra si". That's something that obviously is not about to change and the population is simply going to have to deal with.

Regarding the Federal Constitution... as far as I understand it any Constitution can be changed by Amendments. So what is constitutional or unconstitutional today, may not necessarily be that way tomorrow. I'd honestly hate to live in a country where the Constitution really was written in stone.

  Cheers, 
  William James Woodward – Brazil Animator, Expat-blog Team

Perhaps having the police in unmarked cars OR marked cars without their red lights on could help too? It's pretty obvious!

I can believe this from above.

lawyer_rio wrote:

Brazilian drivers are a danger to everyone, even without alcohol.

From what I have seen on the roads Brazilian drivers driving drunk is the least of the worries in São Paulo.

Honestly, from a civil engineer stand point, the roads in São Paulo, the design of intersections, position of lights, and the thought that went into the work are all horrible wrong. It feels like you are driving drunk on some of the confusing roads.

I think drivers´ education is the best immediate solution.

Driver education only goes so far here, when the going gets tough, the tough go out and buy a driver's license!!!

Regarding traffic engineers and road design, I hear you loud and clear. I think that all Brazilian traffic engineers were imported from Mars.

  Cheers, 
  William James Woodward – Brazil Animator, Expat-blog Team

All this is going back to the impunity question. We know all that a drunk driver with a good lawer can kill anybody on the road without much consequences (refer to Eike Batista´s son).

Something else, I generally drive but I am quite happy to have a walk and I am shocked by how badly drivers treat people walking in the street.
This is not only an alcohol problem but more an education problem. This is a kind of "new rich" symptom:  I am now "rich", got a car, so now I just do not care anymore of people walking in the street and I show it. Pathetic, one of the dark side of Brazilians.

In my personal opinion - I agree with everyone. In this country poor roads, signage, infrastructure, education, lack of responsibility, lack of regard for human life, intoxicating substances, ignorance, arrogance, superiority over those not driving all contribute to accidents, deaths, and injuries related to driving/cars.

When one has no regard for the value of human life, nothing will stop the person from driving recklessly because he/she does not care about themselves or others. I think handcuffs would be the only way to stop them. Those are the ones that scare me the most - w/ w/o alcohol!





Matt V. - Manaus, Amazonas, Brasil
Visit my Personal Blog - brazilbs.blogspot.com