Drunk driving must end in mind first in Vietnam

Driving after drinking cannot remain a matter of luck: whether one happens to be caught by the police or not.

There are deeper questions that must be clarified. Above all, the behavior itself must stop at its origin–in the mind.

Zero alcohol a rule of fairness and enforceability

After the Lunar New Year holiday, or Tet, in February, many people remarked that the holiday felt calmer than before.

Two things were noticeably reduced: karaoke noise and the sight of people driving after drinking.

Many quietly celebrated what seemed like an improvement in public awareness.

Under Decree 282/2025, which took effect on December 15, 2025 and replaced Decree 144/2021, the long-standing regulation that prohibited noise only after 10:00 pm was abolished.

Instead of regulating noise by time frame, the new decree focuses on the actual level of noise generated, regardless of whether it occurs during the day or at night.

Karaoke singing or the use of portable loudspeakers can be penalized at any hour if the sound exceeds allowable limits, not just late at night as before.

Therefore, many residential areas nationwide saw a noticeable decline in noisy karaoke activities during Tet.

On social media, discussions about penalties for alcohol-related driving violations still attract comments from habitual drinkers who insist they are ‘ready to comply’ with the law, but reject the idea that the legal alcohol limit should be zero.

Without a zero-alcohol rule, enforcement would quickly descend into endless arguments such as ‘I only drank one can,’ ‘I’m still sober,’ or ‘I can handle my alcohol.’

Such claims would turn roadside checks into verbal battles between intoxicated drivers and law enforcement officers.

The zero-alcohol rule offers two key advantages.

First, it ensures fairness for everyone.

Second, it allows enforcement to work efficiently.

This clarity reduces disputes and strengthens deterrence as the law is not a place for bargaining.

Knowing risk, yet choosing to drive

When someone drinks and still takes the wheel, the risk is no longer random–it is a decision made with foreseeable consequences.

That decision turns other people’s lives into a gamble.

When tragedy occurs under such circumstances, calling it an ‘accident’ may only soothe the conscience of the person responsible and comfort those who prefer convenient arguments.

The word ‘accident’ typically describes an unforeseen event caused by external factors beyond human intention.

However, when someone knowingly drives after drinking, the risk is already understood.

In such cases, the outcome cannot honestly be described as accidental, but it is the result of a deliberate act.

Some argue that many traffic crashes occur without alcohol involvement.

That is true, but potholes, slippery roads, mechanical failures, or a brief lapse of attention may all cause incidents beyond a driver’s control.

Drinking and then driving belongs to none of those categories.

Alcohol affects reaction, impairs judgment, and narrows vision.

When a person drinks and still drives, he knowingly places others in danger.

That is a personal choice.

Legally, it reflects a serious level of fault rather than ordinary negligence.

Truly offensive behavior

No one is forbidden from drinking alcohol.

Drinking is a personal choice, but that choice ends where it threatens the safety of others.

Drinking is a right, while sober driving is a responsibility.

The two cannot coexist.

Therefore, when traffic police set up checkpoints to test drivers’ alcohol levels, even outside drinking establishments or beer joints, they are exercising both their authority and their duty to protect the community.

Such measures are not ‘offensive,’ as some drinkers claim.

They are preventive actions in the public interest.

In truth, the offensive behavior is not the enforcement, but it is the decision to drink and then take the wheel.

Building new social norm

Strict enforcement of alcohol-related driving laws is necessary, but it may not be enough to address deeper cultural attitudes.

Society must continue to reshape norms so that drinking and driving becomes something people feel ashamed of doing.

Beer joints should refuse to hand over vehicles to intoxicated customers, while people should not remain silent when their friends who have been drinking intend to drive.

When social culture reinforces legal enforcement, the deterrent effect becomes far stronger.

Before raising a glass at any gathering, people should already be asking themselves ‘Who will take me home?.’

That simple question could help establish a new social habit.

If you drink, you do not drive.

Hard legal question

It may feel uncomfortable to use the term ‘killing,’ but legal logic does not allow society to ignore reality.

When an action carries a high likelihood of causing serious harm or death and the person committing it understands that risk yet proceeds anyway, the act bears the mark of grave fault.

This raises an unavoidable question: when such behavior leads to fatal consequences, is administrative punishment truly proportional to the harm caused?