FAQs and ANSWERS
Page 2
Do these devices really deter drunk driving?
Historically, most legal deterrents to drunk driving have not worked. Years of experience with license suspensions, mandatory jail terms and mandated alcohol treatment has shown that such deterrents do not work effectively. Studies reveal that up to 75% of those with suspended licenses drive anyway.
Several states have initiated court mandated ignition interlock programs. In Hamilton County, Ohio, judges had the option of offering the interlock devices to first time offenders with a blood alcohol concentration of .20% or higher at time of arrest, to repeat offenders with at least two convictions in a ten year period, and to offenders who refused a breath alcohol test at time of arrest. Of those who were offered the interlock option had the choice of participating in the ignition interlock program or serving a more traditional license suspension time or other alternative.
In a study of the Hamilton County, Ohio interlock program (Morse and Elliot, 1992) conducted over a 30 month trial period showed that repeat arrests for those who chose license suspension instead of the interlock program were three times greater than repeat arrests of those participating in the interlock program. During the 30 months, 4 of 273 (0.9%) interlock program participants were arrested for driving a car not equipped with an interlock device while 41 of 182 (9% of total) license suspension offenders were arrested.
In the Ohio study, far fewer interlock program participants were likely to violate the terms of the court mandate. Additionally, judges were more likely to offer the interlock program option to those at high risk for repeat offenses, such as those with drug or alcohol arrest histories than to first time offenders. The ignition interlock program participants were more likely to be chronic drunk drivers than first time offenders.
A Maryland study (TranSafety, Inc., 1997) of 1,380 repeat offenders eligible for license reinstatement were randomly assigned to a continuing treatment group or a treatment plus ignition interlock device group. Those in the interlock group were allowed to drive interlock-equipped cars only. A year later, only 2.4% of the interlock group were rearrested in a alcohol-related driving violation while the rate for the treatment only group was 6.7%. Participating in the interlock program reduced the risk of a repeat drunk driving offense within the first year by approximately 65%.
An evaluation of a Canadian ignition interlock program ( Weinrath, 1997 ) reports the following results:
During period of study: |
Participants |
Non-participants |
Rearrested in an alcohol-related driving violation. |
10% |
25% |
Arrested for speeding, reckless driving, etc. |
2.4% |
13.7% |
Involved in new accidents involving injury. |
1% |
7% |
Chronic drunk drivers (3 or more prior convictions) rearrested. |
11% |
28% |
High risk driving arrests (speeding, reckless driving, etc.) |
2.4% |
10.8% |
Involved in a new accident involving injury. |
1.2% |
4.6% |
Rearrested in first 6 mos. |
1% |
7% |
Rearrested in first 12 mos. |
5% |
13% |
Rearrested in first 18 mos. |
7% |
16% |
Rearrested in first 24 mos. |
9% |
19% |
Rearrested during 15 mos. after removal of ignition interlock from cars of program participants. |
8% |
13% |
These impressive interlock program effects held even when factors such as age, criminal record, general driving and collision histories are considered.
It is apparent that a mandatory ignition interlock device program can have a large impact on the safety of our streets. It is also apparent that such programs can significantly reduce expense to taxpayers since far fewer police, court and incarceration hours, as well as uninsured injury victims are involved. Additionally, ignition interlock program participants pay all expenses involved in the program themselves, resulting in even greater savings to the taxpayer.
Morse, Barbara J. and Elliot, Delbert S. Effects of Ignition Interlock Devices on DUI Recidivism: Findings from a Longitudinal Study in Hamilton County, Ohio . Crime and Delinquency . 38:2, 1992, pp. 131-157.
TranSafety, Inc. Study Shows Ignition Interlocks Decrease the Likelihood of Repeat DUI/DWI Offenses . Road Injury Prevention & Litigation Journal, July 19, 1997 .
Weinrath, Michael. The Ignition Interlock Program for Drunk Drivers: A Multivariate Test . Crime & Delinquency. vol 43. January 1997, pp.42-59.
