Over the past two years the number of vehicles seized from drivers convicted of repeat drunk driving has risen dramatically, nearly tenfold. Industry observers describe a shift toward tougher penalties and broader enforcement across regions. The trend seems tied to new rules that treat repeat offenses more seriously and empower authorities to remove dangerous cars from circulation quickly. Reporters and officials say the practice of car seizure is now a routine element of traffic law enforcement, with seized vehicles often held as part of penalties rather than returned immediately. The growing frequency of seizures signals a broader public safety aim: to reduce the risks posed by intoxicated drivers and to deter future offenses. For insurers, fleets, and drivers alike, the tougher climate requires adjustments as authorities prioritize rapid action and clear consequences.
In 2022 the country’s top court reaffirmed the mandatory seizure of vehicles in repeat drunk driving cases, reinforcing the idea that penalties extend beyond fines to remove the car from circulation. By the first half of 2024 authorities reported some 5,800 cars seized, a figure highlighting the scale of enforcement and the pace at which penalties are administered. The seizures often originate in regions with dense traffic and high incident rates, where officials emphasize swift action to curb recidivism. These rulings and their enactment reflect a broader approach that treats alcohol impairment as a direct threat to road safety and responds with immediate, tangible consequences. Observers in neighbouring markets note that similar strategies are gaining traction as governments align road safety with stricter driving standards.
Since July 2022 the seizure policy has applied to multiple offenses in a single cycle. Cars are now taken for offenses such as driving with a suspended license, inappropriate lane use, or significant speeding, among others. In practice, a single offender can lose their vehicle for a period while investigations proceed, removing the opportunity to repeat dangerous behaviors in the near term. Law enforcement and courts describe the measure as a way to prevent further harm, reduce the chance of repeat offenses, and create a stronger incentive for compliant driving. Community voices emphasize that while the policy creates hardship for vehicle owners, its primary aim is to improve safety for all road users and to protect pedestrians and other drivers from reckless acts.
Starting January 1, a mandatory entry into a DNA database applies to individuals convicted of drunk driving. Previously such sampling was limited to those convicted of serious crimes. The new rule links drunk driving to broader DNA data collection, with the goal of speeding investigations and tracking repeat offenders across jurisdictions. Privacy advocates raise concerns about civil liberties and demand robust safeguards to prevent misuse. Proponents argue that the measure will deter repeat offenses and help prosecutors build stronger cases in traffic safety and accident prevention, a policy perspective often discussed in North American practice as part of harmonized safety standards.
Earlier in the year the State Duma signaled intent to prevent a so‑called car uprising linked to advances in vehicle artificial intelligence. Lawmakers are weighing rules on AI in transport, addressing potential risks and setting guardrails to avoid misuse while encouraging responsible innovation. The debate illustrates a broader trend: governments seek to balance rapid tech progress with accountability on public roads. Against the backdrop of harsher penalties for DUI and intensified vehicle seizure practices, the discussion points to a safety‑first regulatory posture that aims to keep pace with technology while protecting road users.