Ignition Interlocks
From Drug Rehab Wiki
No matter where you stand on the issue of drunk driving, the fact is that drunk drivers continue to wreak incredible carnage on American roads and highways. Alcohol-impaired drivers kill approximately one person every 40 minutes. In 2007, according to data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/), nearly 13,000 people were killed as a result of alcohol-impaired-driving crashes. This occurred despite the continued efforts of governmental agencies, law enforcement, the judiciary and attorneys to prevent it. Clearly, something needs to be done to prevent drunk drivers from getting behind the wheel. One solution is ignition interlocks. But do they work? Are they effective in stopping drunk driving?
What Are Ignition Interlocks?
Some experts say that technology perhaps holds the best answer. The NHTSA points to the promising strategy of using the breath alcohol ignition interlock device (BAIID) or, more simply, the ignition interlock. An ignition interlock is simply an aftermarket piece of technology that is installed in a vehicle and prevents the driver from operating the vehicle - if the driver has been drinking. In effect, ignition interlocks are a form of electronic probation. When the driver is not drinking, ignition interlocks allow the individual to drive, thus being able to have gainful employment.
The BAIDs were invented in the early 1970’s. By the mid-1980’s, they were introduced into the driving under the influence (DUI), driving while intoxicated (DWI) offender marketplace. As of 2009, according to NHTSA, 47 states and the District of Columbia currently allow the use of alcohol ignition interlock devices for at least some DWI offenders [1]. The three exceptions are Alabama, South Dakota and Vermont, which do not allow them. Some states mandate the use of ignition interlocks, while in others, judges, state administrators, or even the offenders themselves, choose to apply this sanction or not.
An ignition interlock program is a structured means of providing a convicted impaired driver with restricted driving privileges. In order to participate in the program, individuals must meet eligibility criteria and agree to abide to enforceable program guidelines which may vary by state.
Seven states require ignition interlocks for all offenders, and 22 require it for repeat offenders. Still, of the approximately 1.4 million DWI arrests made each year, per NHTSA, only about 146,000 ignition interlock devices are currently in use with impaired driving offenders.
How Ignition Interlock Devices Work
Here’s how the ignition interlock works. Before starting the vehicle, the driver must breathe into the ignition interlock device. If the driver’s blood alcohol content (BAC) is over a pre-set limit, the ignition interlock will prevent the vehicle from starting. The device has an internal memory and records numerous activities including alcohol levels of the individual each time tested, date and time of each engine start/stop, alcohol results of engine retests while the engine is operating, and any attempts to tamper with or circumvent the system.
The largest independent provider of ignition interlock devices in North America is National Interlock Service (http://www.nationalinterlock.com/default.asp) , which uses the LifeSaver Interlock device. This device was the first one to pass the rigorous standards mandated by NHTSA in 1992. The NHTSA specifications call for the ignition interlock to prevent a car from starting 90 percent of the time if the BAC is .01g/dL greater than the pre-set limit (.02g/dL in extreme weather conditions). Alcohol-specific, the LifeSaver Interlock device is not affected by cigarette smoke. It is lightweight, comfortable, and easy and safe to use. There are no buttons to press and the device turns itself on and is ready to use in seconds. Other ignition interlock devices operate in similar fashion.
As for how long the lock-out persists after initial failure so start due to detection of alcohol on the driver’s breath, the duration is longer for subsequent failed BAC tests. This allows time for the alcohol to dissipate if the driver used an alcohol-based mouthwash or took medicine with an alcohol base. Alcohol is alcohol, and even these items, safe though they may be, will cause the ignition interlock device to prohibit the vehicle from starting – until the BAC detected is under the pre-set limit. The National Interlock Service website says this gives the driver the opportunity to consider the reason why they failed the test.
Ignition interlock systems are becoming more and more sophisticated, thwarting attempts by drivers to get around them. Currently-available ignition interlock devices have anti-circumvention features that prevent tactics like having someone else blow into the device, or using compressed air or a balloon to blow into the ignition interlock. Many of the ways offenders have tried to go around the system in the past have been blocked by using pressure and temperature sensors, using running retests (random retests while the vehicle is operating), recording all events related to vehicle use, and others. Some drivers, however, still attempt to circumvent the system by failing to install court-ordered ignition interlocks or by driving vehicles without them. Others claim they don’t need ignition interlocks because they don’t own a car, don’t intend to drive, or are unable to provide sufficient breath samples.
In a running retest, drivers are advised to pull off the roadway while it is in progress. This is because an auditory or visual activation of an alarm will go off, alerting authorities, if the driver fails the running retest or refuses to comply with the running retest.
Why Ignition Interlocks Are Used
The argument for using ignition interlock device technology is fairly straightforward. Research quoted by NHTSA shows that up to 75 percent of offenders drive illegally after a DWI arrest and license suspension. Among intoxicated drivers involved in fatal crashes, 14 percent have licenses that are currently suspended or revoked. NHTSA also states that many DWI drivers claim that although license revocation interferes with work, they admit that they continue to drive. In California, two-thirds of repeat offenders said they would very likely drive without a license. When individuals are intoxicated, they are unable to make appropriate driving judgments, putting others and themselves at risk when they get behind the wheel.
Ignition interlock programs provide a legal means for convicted offenders to drive while also enhancing public safety.
Effectiveness of Ignition Interlocks
Critics and proponents of ignition interlock systems debate over the effectiveness of the devices in stopping drunk driving. Here are some of the facts in favor of the devices, as well as some of the counter-arguments.
NHTSA, citing research studies, says that ignition interlock devices are effective for both first-time and repeat DWI offenders. A 2005 New Mexico study showed a rate of recidivism of 3.51 percent for first-time offenders with ignition interlocks, compared with a significantly higher re-arrest rate of 7.09 percent for first-time offenders without ignition interlocks. Studies of repeat DWI offenders and ignition interlocks showed similar positive results. A West Virginia study in 1997 showed that repeat DWI offenders with ignition interlocks had a recidivism rate of 1.6 percent, compared with 6.4 percent of repeat DWI offenders without the ignition interlocks who were re-arrested for DWI. A 1999 Maryland study reported similar results. In that study, 2.4 percent of DWI repeat-offenders with ignition interlocks were re-arrested for alcohol-related traffic offenses, versus 6.7 percent of repeat offenders who did not participate in the ignition interlock program.
Overall effectiveness of ignition interlock devices, according to substantial research into the subject (studies conducted from 1999 to 2005), is that they are associated with a substantial reduction in recidivism rates, ranging from 50 to 90 percent.
One concern over the effectiveness of the devices is that when they are removed, recidivism rates may tend to go back up to pre-ignition interlock recidivism rates. NHTSA and other organizations are exploring the possibility of greatly enhancing the effectiveness of ignition interlock devices by lengthening the time their use is required, integrating ignition interlock use with alcohol misuse treatment more closely, or by permanently requiring ignition interlock use for the most serious offenders.
Benefits of Ignition Interlocks
Of course, there is no single strategy or policy that can curb alcohol-related driving crashes. But using sophisticated technology in conjunction with alcohol-abuse treatment programs, stiffer sanctions, and other measures can result in improved highway safety. Some of the benefits of ignition interlocks, according to NHTSA include:
• DWI Recidivism Rate Reduction – As previously stated, use of ignition interlock devices installed on an offender’s vehicle, reduce recidivism among first-time and repeat DWI offenders. More than 10 different evaluations of ignition interlock programs have shown reduction in recidivism rates ranging from 50 to 90 percent, with the average reduction being 64 percent.
• Driver Gets Legal Driving Status – With the installation and use of an approved ignition interlock (according to state requirements), the offending driver is able to regain legal driving status, either with provisional or full licensure. The importance of legal driving status cannot be denied, since it allows the offender to be gainfully employed, attend substance abuse treatment programs, and take care of his or her family or court-ordered obligations that require driving. In areas where there is no public transportation available, such as rural locations, ignition interlocks may be the only way the offender can have reliable transportation.
• Predictor of Future DWI Behavior – The history of failed BAC tests that are logged into the ignition interlock device have proven to be a reliable predictor of future DWI behavior. Individuals who repeatedly fail the BAC tests have higher rates of post-ignition interlock recidivism. Research also shows that 20 to 30 percent of DWI offenders with the highest rates of elevated ignition interlock BAC tests have significantly higher levels of several different biomarkers – most of which are associated with levels of problem drinking. Experts suggest that this record of failed BAC tests could provide critical data important in any decision to restore the offender’s driving license.
• Offenders and Families Approve of the Devices – Surveys of DWI offenders (New Mexico, 2005) found that 85 percent of survey respondents believed use of ignition interlock devices was fair, and 87 percent felt the devices reduced driving after drinking. A 2007 United Kingdom study of families of offenders with ignition interlocks reported they were favorable to the devices. Family members reported they felt reassurance that their loved ones were not driving while impaired and further said the devices resulted in a positive experience and change in their loved one’s drinking habits.
• Ignition Interlocks and Substance Abuse Treatment – In many states, it’s a combination of both that are required, and this often proves to be the most effective strategy to reduce alcohol-related driving crashes. Ignition interlocks permit the offender to attend substance abuse treatment programs, and provides a safety net while the individual is learning how alcohol consumption affects behavior. Substance abuse treatment can be an extended process, with progress, setbacks and relapse. Many experts say that ignition interlocks and substance abuse treatment programs should be tied closer together. The belief is that integrating the two strategies is mutually reinforcing to the likelihood of a reduction in the offender’s impaired driving.
Organizations Supporting Ignition Interlocks
A number of organizations officially support the use of ignition interlock devices as a means of helping to curb drunk driving. These groups and organizations include the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), and the National Commission Against Drunk Driving.
• MADD’s Position (http://www.madd.org/Drunk-Driving/Drunk-Driving/Campaign-to-Eliminate-Drunk-Driving/Ignition-Interlocks.aspx) – In its official position statement on ignition interlocks, the organization says, “MADD is dedicated to supporting state legislation that expands the use of current alcohol ignition interlock technology so that interlocks are mandatory for all convicted drunk drivers in all 50 states.” The organization works closely with state lawmakers to encourage passage of “this lifesaving legislation.”
o In a letter encouraging support of ignition interlock devices (https://secure2.convio.net/madd/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&id=477&JServSessionIdr008=lwe7algvt3.app46b)for all convicted drunk drivers, MADD cites statistics showing that people with previous drunk driving convictions account for one-third of the drunk driving in America. First-time offenders, says MADD’s online literature, have driven drunk an “average of 87 times before they are convicted and most likely have a serious problem with alcohol.”
Future Research into Ignition Interlocks
In an effort to constantly improve ignition interlock technology, the NHTSA and others have identified several important areas for future and/or continuing research.
• The role of monitoring in ignition interlock programs
• Process evaluations of interlock programs
• Determination of interlock programs’ optimal structure
• Interaction of interlocks and alcohol treatment programs
• Outcome evaluations of interlock programs
• Examination of the impact of ignition interlocks on the use of other sanctions for DWI offenders (for example, are ignition interlocks becoming used more often than other sanctions for DWI offenders?)
Important Considerations for Ignition Interlock Programs
Each state is responsible for defining the crime of alcohol-impaired driving and any sanctions related to it. Creating an effective ignition interlock program within a state’s existing systems can create a number of challenges.
Is the state’s motivation for using ignition interlock sanctions public safety, whereby they provide a protective shield, reducing public exposure to impaired driving? Is it more a means of rehabilitation, where the ignition interlock detects and prevents driving by DWI offenders who continue to drink? Is it something in between these two philosophies or something else altogether? How the various states answer these questions will be instrumental in determining ignition interlock policies, including the criteria for program participation, length of required interlock installation, interlock noncompliance, and more.
Bottom line: Ignition Interlocks can be effective in stopping drunk driving, but there is much more that needs to be done in conjunction with implementation of their use with convicted DWI offenders. Education, substance abuse treatment, consistency of state programs, monitoring and studies of overall effectiveness in reducing recidivism of DWI offenders all play a part in helping to curb drunk driving.
