Study Reveals that Ignition Interlock Devices Don’t Do Any Good

The California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) recently undertook a study for a report to the California Legislature about the effectiveness of ignition interlock devices for people who had been convicted of DUI. The bottom-line conclusion of the DMV was that ignition interlock device requirements for first, second or third time DUI offenders did not reduce the risk of the person re-offending in the future. In other words, ignition interlock devices don’t make any difference. You can read the report here. The report cites to a previous study from 2005 that had “mixed results” and found that ignition interlock devices actually INCREASED the chances of risks of drivers crashing. Presumably, this is because ignition interlock devices require not only that the driver blow into them to start the car, but also require “rolling tests” while driving. So, every 15 minutes or so you have to blow into the thing while the car is moving – which sounds dangerous. So, the “traffic safety” benefits of ignition interlock devices are “questionable” at best. In the California study, ignition interlock did nothing to reduce the number of DUI offenses or convictions.

Kansas is one of the few states that requires the installation of an ignition interlock device for a first time DUI conviction or suspension. A few years ago the Kansas Legislature passed laws requiring the ignition interlock device for 6 months for people who blow between .08 and .150, and at least one year for those that blow over .150, on their first offense. If a person refuses to take a test, the length of restriction to an ignition interlock device is for 2 years on a first offense. The years of required ignition interlock device go up from there for subsequent test failures and refusals. The ignition interlock lobby is very strong and is extremely active in getting laws passed that benefit the ignition interlock companies in states around the country. Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) has the requirement of ignition interlock devices for every DUI offender listed as one of their primary goals for each state. As I said, Kansas has already fallen in line with the ignition interlock requirement and not only restricts every DUI driver to a period of ignition interlock, but requires that the driver show proof that he or she actually had the device in his or her car for the required time period before the driver’s license can  be reinstated. The legislature has made sure that the interlock companies get paid.

The California study showed that 74% of all DUI offenders were first-time offenders and that they had the lowest rate of recidivism. Ignition interlock devices did nothing to generally deter the public from drinking and driving and did not have any effect on that rate of recidivism for those once convicted. I would imagine that the numbers in Kansas would be the same. People who have never had a DUI in Kansas are not aware that ignition interlock will be required if they get one, and studies show that people don’t pay attention to that kind of information even if it were widely publicized. So, the overwhelming majority of people have no idea that ignition interlock may be required if they get a DUI, the devices do little to nothing to reduce the incidence of DUI and may actually make the roads less safe. The ignition interlock campaign does nothing to address the 74% first-time offenders. In fact, all of the harsher punishments, longer suspensions, requirement of ignition interlock, the criminalizing of refusals and other increasingly draconian measures implemented in the past decade or two have had zero effect on the incidence of DUI. To the extent that traffic fatalities have decreased, this is more an effect of airbags, better road design, and better car design. We cannot jail or ignition interlock our way out of the DUI issue. The government’s gameplan is to keep ratcheting up the consequences instead of focusing on actual prevention. We’ll see what California does with this study.

Google+

Continue Reading...

California Lawmaker wants Ignition Interlock Devices for All DUI Offenders

For those of you who are unfamiliar with ignition interlock devices (IID), it is a device which is installed on a vehicle’s dashboard. The device works like a breathalyzer that must be blown into and provided a breath sample. If the sample is registered as being below the preset blood alcohol content level, the vehicle will be allowed to start. However, if the sample is above the preset limit, the device prevents the engine from being started.

The IID requires further breath samples at random times after the vehicle has been started. The purpose is to prevent someone else from blowing into the IID just to start the vehicle and ensure that the driver is sober throughout the drive. If a sample is not provided or if the sample contains alcohol above the preset limit, the device warns the driver, and initiates an alarm (flashing lights and honking horn) until the vehicle is turned off or the IID is provided a clean breath sample.

Currently, IID are required for first-time drunk driving offenders in four California counties participating in a pilot program. Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Tulare counties require installation of an IID for five months in all vehicles that a driver operates following a California DUI conviction.

Senator Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, has proposed a bill that would expand the IID requirement for first-time offenders throughout California.

“California needs to do a better job of reducing deaths and injuries from drunk drivers,” said a statement from Hill. “Ignition interlocks save lives and can be an effective counter measure to reduce DUI recidivism.”

The issue is personal for Hill whose best friend was killed by a drunk driver thirty years ago.

“It’s something that’s personal to me. I know the pain his family and we felt… I hate to see other families go through that.”

In addition to the other thousands of dollars associated with a California DUI conviction, people required to install the IID will have to pay between $50 and $100 per month to have the device installed. This can prove to be quite a financial burden on some. This, however, is the least of my concerns with IIDs.

Not only can they be inaccurate for a number of reasons, just as breathalyzers can be, they can also be dangerous.

Talk about distracted driving. Having to blow into a device installed on the dashboard whilst driving sounds more dangerous than talking on a phone while driving. And how dangerous is it to drive with the lights flashing and horn honking because a sample is not provided in time?  That would most certainly prove to be a distraction for the driver of the vehicle with the IID as well as a distraction for other motorists on the road. 

That’s a big risk for something that does not even tackle the underlying cause of DUI-related fatalities, which is what Hill claims the new law will prevent. The majority of DUI-related fatalities do not come from first-time offenders who register a blood alcohol content of between 0.08 percent and 0.15 percent. Rather, the vast majority of DUIs that cause death or injury come from repeat offenders who register well over 0.20 percent blood alcohol content; drivers with serious alcohol problems, not social drinkers.

I’m not against getting drunk drivers off of the road, but Hill’s legislation misses the mark.

This entry was posted on Monday, January 5th, 2015 at 8:42 am and is filed under Duiblog. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Continue Reading...

Is MADD Pushing for Interlock Devices in all Vehicles?

New legislation contains a provision for research into ignition interlock devices to be installed as standard equipment in automobiles.  Is this really just research or are there bigger motives behind this?

Is MADD trying to put interlock devices in all or our cars?

A recent article on Politico highlights the on-going battle over installing technology in vehicles to test for alcohol.  The current legislation calls for research into this technology.  While there is no mandate in the current legislation, many experts who have followed drunk driving legislation are concerned that we are headed for mandatory interlock devices for all cars.  This would be a horrible  step.

The current breath testing machines, whether it’s the handheld machines used by the police at roadside or the “advanced” machines used for the official state tests, are truly a flop.  The technology is old and makes far too many mistakes to be considered reliable.  This could cause some serious problems.

If you eat a sandwich and want to drive, forget about it.Brush your teeth and use mouth wash like Listerine and want to drive, forget about it.For instance, if you’re a husband and your wife has suddenly gone into labor, a faulty breath test could freeze your car from starting which could threaten the life of your wife and child.What if someone who was trying to assault you was chasing you and you rush to your car only for it not to start because of  the time it takes to process the breath test?

Then there is the question of our freedom.  Why do you have to blow into a machine to prove that you’re not a criminal in order to start your car?  What ever happened to the presumption of innocence before proven guilty? Whatever happened to the notion that we are a society built on the freedom from government?

Who will calibrate these machines?  The police can’t keep their own machines properly calibrated so can they be trusted in this regards?  Will people have to do it themselves?

There are many question that need to be answered and issues that need to be carefully studied and well-thought out before mandating this technology on all automobiles.  While MADD and other lobbies will argue this is the “magic potion” to end DUI forever, we hope that lawmakers will make rational decisions about this program.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...