对危险驾驶罪立法过程的考察，特别是对该罪立法必要性的反思，对于建立我国刑法立法犯罪化相关原则、规范犯罪圈扩张的立法趋势有着极其重要的意义。危险驾驶罪立法必要性层面的反思，主要是从醉驾等交通违法行为的现状、危险驾驶罪立法动因与风险社会立法背景三个路径进行考察。首先，只有违法行为的发展形势发生显著变化，而其他部门法不能有效遏制时才能发动刑罚。根据我国交通违法行为相关数据，以醉酒驾驶行为为代表的交通违法行为并未显著增加或者恶化。其次，回溯危险驾驶罪的立法过程，媒体对个别醉驾、追逐竞驶恶劣案件的报道，引发民众的不安全感，从而形成呼吁危险驾驶行为入刑的舆论氛围，此乃推动危险驾驶罪立法的主要动因。最后，我国现阶段的社会背景与风险社会理论适用的社会阶段并不符合，“风险”概念也很难涵盖危险驾驶行为具有的“风险”含义，因此，风险社会理论并非增设危险驾驶罪的有力依据。危险驾驶罪立法合理性的反思，可以从刑事政策的视角展开。我国宽严相济的刑事政策对刑法立法的指导效果有限，刑事立法政策应当从以下两个方面进行完善。一方面，需要结合刑法谦抑性等价值原则，建立更加细化的立法原则体系。刑事立法的基本原则包括科学性、人道性和功利性三个层面。科学性是指刑法立法要符合犯罪情势与客观规律，还要符合社会治理规律。人道性是指，在制定预防和惩治犯罪对策时，不能为了功利性的需要过度扩张刑罚权而压缩公民自由。功利性则是指刑法立法要适应社会发展的需要。另一方面，刑事立法政策应当具有方法论的意义。我国刑法立法多采用座谈、听取各方意见的调查研究方式，而实证定量的科学调研则显得薄弱。刑法立法决策有时需要建立在对犯罪情势变化等客观现象的认识之上，因此，需要更加客观的方法来得出这些决策依据。危险驾驶罪属于抽象危险犯是该罪的重要属性，很多疑难问题的探讨都需紧紧围绕这一重要属性展开。在大陆法系刑法理论中，危险犯与实害犯相对，行为犯与结果犯相对，它们是根据不同标准对犯罪所作的分类。抽象危险犯同时又属于行为犯范畴。在正确区分危险驾驶罪犯罪类型的前提下，才得以顺利解决罪与非罪的界限问题。追逐竞驶行为罪的罪与非罪界限问题主要集中在对“情节恶劣”的理解上。除了可以通过司法解释规定影响该行为危险性的因素来限制“情节恶劣”的含义，还可以进一步发布指导性案例来指导司法实践。区分醉酒驾驶行为罪与非罪的界限，首先要明确醉驾行为并非一律入刑，这是抽象危险犯属性与刑法总论“但书”规定的题中之义。其次，血液酒精含量并非认定醉驾行为的唯一标准。因为，醉酒驾驶行为的抽象危险性由驾驶人员饮酒量、车辆、道路情况等诸多因素决定。血液酒精含量虽然是最易衡量的标准，但并非唯一标准。血液酒精含量如果作为认定犯罪行为的唯一标准，将带来证据种类单一，证据极易灭失等很多弊端。危险驾驶罪中刑法与行政法之间有效衔接和相辅相成，不但是作为统一整体的我国法律体系所要求，还可以调动最少的法律资源而实现最有效的社会治理效果。关于该罪的两部门法关系可以分为实体与程序两个层面。实体层面的衔接问题主要存在于：增设危险驾驶罪后，《道路交通安全法》相关条文的修改建立在醉驾行为一律入刑的基础之上，因此出现了两部门法因为衔接不严而造成的“法网漏洞”。程序层面的两法关系问题则集中于：需要继续完善交警部门查处危险驾驶行为的行政执法程序，特别是取证环节的程序规范化。交警部门对醉酒驾驶行为的查处程序，从主体上看属于行政执法活动；从内容上又属于刑事证据的收集、调查程序，关系到刑事司法程序的顺利进行，还关系查处对象的人身、财产权利。因而，对醉驾行为查处程序应当进一步细化与规范化。酒精检测的取证程序是认定醉驾型危险驾驶罪的重要环节，现实中经常出现当事人逃避、拒绝和妨碍酒精检测的情况。针对这些常见情况，应当规定相应的处理程序、警察职权和证据规则。随着实践经验的增加与社会发展的需要，危险驾驶罪将在立法上不断完善。一方面，这种完善表现为危险驾驶罪行为方式的扩张。通过域外惩处“毒驾”犯罪的经验可以发现，“毒驾”行为的取证，由于毒品种类复杂而缺乏统一、实用的检测标准，故而，司法操作上的现实困难成为该行为入刑的最大障碍。《刑法修正案（九）（草案）》欲增加两种新的危险驾驶行为方式，即驾驶客运车辆超载、超速的行为以及违反危险化学品安全管理规定运输危险化学品的行为。后者违反的是“危险化学品安全管理规定”，与其他三种行为方式的行为性质存在显著差别，作为危险驾驶罪行为方式的合理性有待商榷。危险驾驶罪行为方式不宜盲目扩张，否则将使其变为容纳各种交通违法行为的“口袋罪”。在扩张行为方式的犯罪化过程中，必须充分发挥刑事政策的指导作用；并平衡现实需要同刑法谦抑性、人道性等价值原则之间的关系；考察刑事实体法与程序法之间是否有效配合，刑法与其他部门法之间是否协调统一。另一方面，该罪在立法上的深层次完善，必须通过立法模式转变来完成。如果将刑法133条之1以空白罪状的方式规定为“违反交通运输法规，危害公共安全的，应当处以拘役或者罚金”。另外，在相关行政法规范中，再分别规定各种危险驾驶罪的行为方式的罪状，其后一并规定相应的刑罚。这种立法方式，不但保持了刑法典的统领作用，又保留了行政规范规定不同危险驾驶行为方式的灵活性。危险驾驶罪司法适用方面也亟待完善：包括查处程序的规范化、强制措施适用的规范化以及量刑的规范化。针对当事人逃避、拒绝和妨碍血液检测的处理，应当增加关于交警在检测血液酒精含量程序中，适用破除车窗等强制手段的情形和职权范围。对危险驾驶罪嫌疑人应当扩大取保候审的适用范围，严格限制拘留强制措施的适用。在拘役刑的量刑过程中，不能过度依赖血液酒精含量作为量刑情节，还应综合考察车车辆类型、道路情况等影响行为危险性的重要情节。

In the background of increasing crimes in criminal law, the reflection of dangerous driving crime’s legislative progress will help to construct the system of criminal law legislative principles. How to explain the necessity about adding dangerous driving as a crime? We should inspect the real motive lying in legislative progress as well as the condition of current traffic offense behaviors, especially dangerous driving offense. In addition, we should also take the legislative social background (risk society) into consideration. Firstly, the penalty can be authorized when administrative law can’t deal with some offenses. For example, it can be authorized when the offenses become more serious or some changes occur. However, according to relative data of traffic offense condition in China, the condition did not deteriorate before the amendment. Secondly, the most powerful motive existing in adding dangerous driving crime is media debate and public concern which are aroused by several serious drink driving and chase race driving cases. Last but not the least, the risk social background cannot provide reasonable and sufficient reasons to add the dangerous driving as a crime. The criminal policy of combining punishment with leniency plays a limited role in criminal legislation. Better legislation criminal policy should provide legislative principles and practical methods. The former is about scientific spirit, humanity and utilitarian. The methodology refined from criminal policy’s essence is that our criminal law legislation progress needs more empirical method to know more objective condition about relative offenses and social background instead of subjective idea collections.The dangerous driving crime is a kind of abstract potential damage offense. Ways of solving the theoretical problems exist in its essential trait. In continental law system, the concept of potential damage offense is opposite to the real damaging offense, and behavioral offense and consequential offense are opposite to each other as well. Abstract potential damage offense belongs to behavioral offense also. “It is wicked to decide whether it is a crime or not in chase race driving by only focusing on circumstances”. Judicial interpretation should be enacted to define the “circumstance are wicked”, including some important elements determining the degree of danger. A system of guiding cases about chase race driving is also effective. whether a drink driving act is a crime should be based on the premise that if all the drink driving offense are crime. The conclusion is that not all the drink driving offense are crime because the crime is an abstract potential damage offense and there is special stipulation in our criminal law that if a offense is obviously minor, it isn’t a crime act. Furthermore, the danger degree of drink driving act is determined by some kinds of circumstances elements including the road condition, the vehicle condition etc. which means the BAC is not the only criterion to judge a drink driving crime. Ideally, criminal law and administrative law cooperate to control and punish the dangerous driving offense. On the one hand, Road Traffic Safety Law amends the drink driving stipulation based on the premise that all the drink driving act are crime act, then the criminal law and Road Traffic Safety Law don’t work when some minor drink driving behaviors are judged not to be a crime act. On the other hand, the relationship between the two kinds of laws in procedural aspect appears that traffic police is not only the law-executor in administrative activity, but also the criminal evidence collector in criminal process.In the future, more new action fashion will be stipulated as dangerous driving crime to adapt the society’s progress. Researching on other countries and regions’ experience in punishing drug driving act, we can make a conclusion that the biggest challenge in stipulating drug driving in our criminal law is that there isn’t a practical standard to test diverse drug. The draft of the ninth Criminal law amendment will add two behavior pattern including passenger-carrying vehicle overloading and over-speeding and illegal dangerous chemicals transporting. If the latter act is a proper behavior pattern of dangerous driving worth discussing, the profound improvement of legislation needs the way of legislation’s change. We should add relative penal content beside crime facts in Road Traffic Safety Law.More normative investigating process, the application of compulsory measures and measurement of penalty will improve this crime’s judicature. For instance, we should stipulate certain condition when police can break vehicle’s window in order to test the criminal suspect’s BAC who are not willing to take the test. More bail should be posted in dangerous driving cases and detention should be restricted. Judges should consider all circumstances about dangerous driving act including vehicle’s pattern, the road condition etc. Criminals BAC is not the only element in measuring the penalty.