Excerpted from “What’s New in the Ignition Interlock World?” by Darrel L. Longest. www.ignitioninterlock.com/impaired.htm. Copyright © 2000 Life Sciences Corporation. Originally published by Civic Research Foundation, Impaired Driving Update. Reprinted with permission.
Darrel L. Longest is the founder and CEO of Life Sciences Corporation, a privately held company known as the Ignition Interlock Group. The company is a multi-state service provider for ignition interlocks that installs, maintains, monitors, and reports on interlock use by DUI and DWI offenders.
Ignition interlock devices prevent drunk driving offenders from operating motor vehicles while intoxicated by requiring a breath test from the driver before the vehicle will start. The devices also contain computer chips that record drivers’ attempts to drive drunk. Interlock devices have been proven to reduce the re-arrest rates of chronic drunk driving offenders, who participate in ignition interlock programs on a voluntary basis in exchange for early driver’s license reinstatement after a conviction. States are expanding their use of ignition interlock programs under pressure from Congress, which is threatening to withhold highway construction funds from states if high risk offenders are not more successfully treated. Due to their effectiveness, and to their ability to provide valuable information about driver behavior, ignition interlock programs should begin to play a larger role in the battle against drunk driving.
For those not familiar with interlock programs, they have a Breathalyzer® device that is hard-wired into the ignition system of any vehicle and requires a breath test before the vehicle will start, which documents the driver’s attempts to drink and drive. To prevent the use of “curbside” help from a friend, anti-circumvention measures are built into the breath testing process, along with a “rolling retest” that requires a random breath test about 3 times each hour while driving. There are now 39 states with laws that permit the use of these programs, and more are pending legislation this year.1 Interlock programs are offender-supported, depending on no tax money.
Interlock studies show continuing success
Ignition interlock programs have made large strides in the US and abroad since 1998.
The University of Maryland study of April 1997 by Beck, Rauch & Baker (“The Effects of Alcohol Ignition Interlock License Restrictions on Multiple Alcohol Offenders: A Randomized Trial in Maryland,” Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs, and Traffic Safety, vol. 1, pp. 177-92 [Annecy, France CERMT, Centre d'Etudes et de Recherches on Medecine du Trafic]), has been subjected to a number of reviews, including a study reported in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, (Coben & Larkin [1999], “Effectiveness of Ignition Interlock Devices in Reducing Drunk Driving Recidivism,” AJPM, 16, pp. 81-87). Interlocks have been found to be very effective in reducing recidivism amongst offenders with an average of 3.5 convictions (65% reduction in this group, with a year’s interlock program).
Additional research has added strength to the earlier studies concerning the ability of interlock devices to reduce re-arrest rates in the family of hard-core, persistent drinking drivers. Dr. Robert Voas, et. al., of the Pacific Institute for Research has published twice on the subject of the role of interlocks.2 Voas has found the interlock to be very useful in reducing recidivism, but that their ability to have a greater impact on recidivism could be much larger if they were in greater use, since only a small percentage of offenders will volunteer to have an early license reinstatement with an interlock program.
It is clearer now than in 1998 that, while interlocks are not a panacea, or the “Silver Bullet,” for solving our drinking and driving problem, they are a very successful tool not only to reduce recidivism while they are being used, but after their use, if they are utilized in treatment programs that know how to read and interpret the datalogger information produced from interlock devices.
The success of these studies has settled one long-term question that was previously answered only by anecdotal evidence: Are interlocks effective in reducing drinking and driving? They clearly are. The questions now are: What is the model program protocol, and how do we get the most from these programs? We will examine here what a few states are doing to make interlock programs work better for them.
Development of a model interlock program
Progress: We are well on our way to development of a model interlock program. Several states with well-established programs have taken a close look at how they can get more from their interlock programs, and others have followed their example; there are several who have done little in this regard, and need to do so before their programs will be successful.
All but the very oldest of interlock devices now have a “datalogger”—a memory chip that records information from the interlock, such as the value and time of each breath alcohol test taken, the number of engine starts in each monitoring period (usually every 30 days), hours of operation, and many other bits of information useful in monitoring probation and rehabilitation progress and compliance.
Now, more than at any other time, virtually all state authorities have realized that an interlock program involves not merely the installation of an interlock device, but the entire protocol that comes with it—how it is to be installed, security issues, how often it is to be serviced and calibrated and the data removed from the device, and what information will be transmitted to the monitoring authorities so that they may use it in the rehabilitation and probation process to monitor driver behavior while on the interlock program. Many of the better statewide interlock programs are now using the valuable information about driver behavior stored in the interlock’s datalogger, requiring service providers to provide that information in carefully developed computer programs and even in an electronic format for delivery to probation, treatment, research, and Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) authorities (e.g., Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, and Tennessee). Some have actually established enforcement procedures that keep providers on their toes, providing higher level services than in states without any regulation of providers or manufacturers, and enforcing them by field inspections.
Others have expanded their use of interlock programs, but without yet establishing higher-level requirements for devices or for service providers (e.g., Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Washington State). All this has added to the level of comfort for courts, probation and DMV authorities to use interlock devices, although the states without good service and device protocols are still groping for the right combinations of these regulations. Once they have these requirements added to their protocols, there will be an even higher level of confidence in the programs.
Challenges to developing interlock programs
Although there has been movement in developing sound interlock programs and requiring service providers to meet certain minimum standards to qualify to install, calibrate, monitor and report on interlock use, there remains opposition by some manufacturers and providers to doing so, as change is expensive to adopt, and some are seeking to get all they can out of older equipment, at the expense of the driving public.
There are now many manufacturers of interlock devices. All but 2 of these now make an alcohol-specific interlock device, which will not render positives to such things as cigarette smoke or foods. Although many states have put a stop to the use of older equipment, and are requiring the use of the alcohol-specific devices to reduce the “false positives” that occur in the use of older equipment, some have been reluctant to require newer technology to be used. Thus, false positives still exist in the field, and will remain until the state authorities demand that better technology (readily available) be used.
There has been no movement in another difficult area. There are still no commonly accepted qualifications for the laboratories that test interlock devices. Although some have adopted a requirement that an ISO-9000 [International Organization for Standardization—international standards that apply to electronics] qualified lab, or a state crime lab (e.g., Virginia and Nevada) do the independent evaluation of interlock device test results to see that they pass the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) guidelines for technical requirements, there are still those that will accept nearly any lab’s certification, and even some that still allow “self-certification” by a manufacturer. The states need to adopt regulations that will mandate testing by a qualified state crime lab or a private lab that is either ISO-9000 certified, or certified to some internationally recognized requirement that will ensure that a reliable product goes into the field. In 1998, some members of the International Association of Chemical Testers (IACT) asked NHTSA to have interlocks tested by the Volpe Labs under NHTSA supervision, but no action on that suggestion has occurred yet. NHTSA should move on this suggestion, and all the “hoop-la” over which devices do, and do not, meet the NHTSA guidelines—and the acrimony that goes with it—will go away.
There continues to be a wide variance in interlock device sensor stability, with some devices (usually those with the “T” cell) going out of calibration well within a 30 day monitoring period, and others staying very stable over long periods of time (well in excess of 90 days). Requiring an alcohol-specific sensor that will be stable for longer terms, tested by a qualified lab, will also eliminate this sensor instability problem, prevent false positive results, and increase the courts’ and DMVs’ willingness to use interlocks.
The biggest challenge remains: to describe and implement the optimum combination of interlock device and program protocols (the age-old questions: who is eligible, how long should the interlock be used, what kinds of reports should be provided, what are the technical requirements of a good program, what information is fed to the treatment programs, and what do you do with the offender who continues to drink and tries—even though unsuccessfully—to drive?). Many states are homing in on the right formula, and several organizations looked at this topic in 2000 (through more independent studies, and education by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), NHTSA, and the National Commission Against Drunk Driving [NCADD]).
Interlocks, MADD, and the federal government
Perhaps the longest strides in the interlock world in 1999 have come in the recent actions taken by Congress, NHTSA, and MADD. The successful studies of interlock programs and the problem of the “higher risk driver” have not escaped the eye of MADD-National and the federal government.
Always vigilant to the problem of the persistent drinking driver, in 1998, the Transportation Equities Act of the 21st Century (TEA-21) was passed. In addition to providing billions of dollars during the next 5 years for highway, bridge and mass transit construction, it provides for a number of highway safety programs to be enacted by the states.
In prior years, Congress has merely encouraged the states to engage in safety programs to deal with the DUI/DWI multiple offender. Now, they have outlined a specific group of programs that the states must adopt to fight this offender, under penalty of having some of their construction funds diverted by the federal government into safety programs. Under the watchful eye of NHTSA, Congress included ignition interlock programs as one of these programs. Starting in October 2000, every state will lose some portion of its construction funding to highway safety programs unless they adopt, among other things, a vehicle impoundment, confiscation, or ignition interlock program for the multiple offender.
In late December 1999, MADD and NHTSA held a press conference in Washington. The topic was a newly-coined phrase, the “Higher Risk Driver Program.” This is a DUI/DWI offender who has a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) at arrest of 0.16% or higher, or any multiple offender within 5 years. Although there are many facets to the MADD program that do not directly involve the use of interlocks, MADD has set out a program of compromises that utilizes the benefits of interlock programs in the following ways:
- The Higher Risk Driver is a person with a second DUI within a 5-year period, or a first offender DUI with a BAC of 0.16% or higher, or a driving while suspended offender, where the suspension was the result of a conviction for DUI.
- For repeat offenders, there will be:
- 1-year hard administrative license suspension, and a 2-year suspension for refusal to take a breath test at arrest.
- 60-day immobilization or impoundment of the vehicle driven at the time of arrest.
- A 5-year period during which the offender is subject to a 0.15% BAC level and provide breath tests upon request.
- Ignition interlock program for license reinstatement, to remain in the program for 1 year.
- For the High BAC Drivers (whether first or multiple offense):
- Hard license suspension period greater than the suspension for under a 0.16%, with a 2-year suspension for refusal to take the test.
- Ignition interlock device required prior to issuance of probationary, hardship, or work permit license and for the full license suspension period.
- For the driver caught while driving on a license suspended as a result of a DUI or DWI conviction:
- Ignition interlock required for the remaining license suspension period and any additional suspension period imposed as a result of the conviction for driving while suspended.
- A 1-month vehicle impoundment or immobilization for the first offense, with forfeiture for any subsequent offenses.
Although portions of this program, which was fully supported during the press conference by the Acting Administrator of NHTSA, will no doubt run into some problems with several state legislatures (many do not like the concept of vehicle impoundment or confiscation due to the hardship that it places on many families, and the fact that there are often many exceptions that result in the release of vehicles), there can be little doubt that with the backing of MADD and the financial consequences of TEA-21’s multiple offenders programs bearing down on state highway construction budgets, there will be a vastly expanded use of interlocks starting in 2000.
Interlocks and the private sector
Corporate America has a high-risk paradox on its hands, even without their employees being charged with a DUI.
Here’s how it comes about: Many businesses provide for substantial health care and employee assistance for those in need of alcohol and or drugs of abuse help (called Employee Assistance Programs, or EAP). Thus, the corporation’s Personnel Department, Human Resources, or Health Officer becomes aware of the extent of these problems. Management does not want to fire a good employee who has been there for many years, is a good worker, and is productive, whether they have a known driving-related alcohol problem, or not.
It costs a lot of money to find, hire and train a replacement, and most major organizations, such as utilities, government fleets, and other high-maintenance business, would rather try to help cure the problem than fire the employee. However, if they keep the employee and allow him to drive on company time, for company business, whether in a personal car or a company vehicle, the business has an expanded legal exposure for crashes resulting from the use of alcohol or other drugs of abuse. The greater the knowledge of the problem, the greater the legal exposure for allowing the alcohol-related driving to occur.
Several companies facing this paradox have turned to interlocks to help solve it. Interlocks installed in the vehicle that is used during work have proved to be exceptionally successful in stopping an employee from drinking and driving on the job. Thousands of jobs have already been saved by the use of interlocks, while the roads have remained safe for the driving public at the same time.
Although the major users of interlocks for this purpose remains with the small fleets worried about their liability and driver safety, the interlock’s future holds even more room for interlock use in the commercial and private sectors than it does in the realm of DUI offenders, especially among the larger corporate trucking fleets with a high need for compliant data reporting systems. The interlock provides this means. Use of interlock devices, combined with wireless transmission of data and other information useful to the trucking companies on driver and truck performance, will prove to be the easiest way for corporate America to comply with the requirements of the Department of Transportation for random breath alcohol tests and avoid significant sanctions against the driver.
This is the present world of the ignition interlock—one in which studies proving their substantial contribution to reduced recidivism, increased road safety, maintenance of job opportunities, and compliance with federal and state regulations for monitoring of commercial drivers have all come to a junction. 2000 will surely be known as the watershed year for the interlock industry.
