[A traffic psychology comment on "a cost-benefit analysis of courses for repeatedly intoxicated automobile drivers"]

Hundhausen's statements to valuation of repeating training courses show essential deficiencies: Quotations of specialitic authors are placed in a not right context. Relevant empiric results which would withdraw the basis of all his conclusions are not reported by him. So he argues in opposition to published empiric dates (see Winkler 1988, Stephan 1988) and logical arguments (see Stephan 1988), which prove that persons comprised in reality examinations had a above-averades traffic risk. Moreover, he overlooks in his exclusive 'calculatory valuation' that his argue of 'detour production' on the one hand violates the public claim on traffic security and on the other hand the constitutional claim of the alcohol conspicious drivers on proportion of national sanctions and measures. Also in case subsequent trained drivers do not represent a population being specially high relapse dangered, they should be offered the possibility to choose their own milder alternative (shortening of blocking period when having been successful as a course member). This should only be realized when the traffic security is not affected. The attempt to achieve an own valuation of the course success by economic founded scales must be judged as failed because of the not exactly termed premises and the logical consequences as well.