Sanctioning and Supervising Impaired Drivers

Article

By: National Commission Against Drunk Driving (NCADD)

Date: 2005

Source: NCADD: National Commission Against Drunk Driving. "Sanctioning and Supervising Impaired Drivers." 〈http://www.ncadd.com/sanction_iis.cfm〉 (accessed January 14, 2006).

About the Author: The National Commission Against Drunk Driving (NCADD) is a consortium of private and public groups. It is a nonprofit publicly funded agency established to educate the public about the hazards, legal risks, and social implications of drunk driving. The organization lobbies for greater awareness about drunk driving and urges the use of technology to strengthen enforcement of "driving under the influence" (DUI) laws. It is the successor to the National Commission of Drunk Driving that was established as the first such national body by President Ronald Reagan to examine the problem of drunk driving.

INTRODUCTION

Driving under the influence (DUI), or driving while intoxicated (DWI), is a major driving and transportation safety issue because drivers impaired by alcohol or drugs cause a significant number of accidents, many of them fatal or critical. DUI is a serious offense, and all fifty states have passed strict laws to discourage drunk driving and get offenders off the road. This includes raising the legal drinking age to twenty-one and adopting a zero-tolerance approach toward drivers caught under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Drivers who behave erratically can be stopped by a police officer and questioned about their alcohol consumption. If the officer notices a strong alcohol odor, slurred or incoherent speech, or uncooperative behavior, drivers can be asked to undergo a field sobriety test that shows whether they have consumed enough alcohol or other drugs to impair their motor functions. Drivers suspected of drunk driving may also be asked to undergo a breath alcohol test, which gives an approximation of their blood alcohol content (BAC). They can be arrested if their BAC registers above the legal limit. A driver who is suspected of being intoxicated can have his drivers license suspended immediately, booked for drunk driving, and taken to a holding a cell until he is sober.

"Sanctioning and Supervising Impaired Drivers" describes a system known as the ignition interlock system, which is intended to detect and prevent drunk driving by those with previous DUI convictions. The article explains how the system works and also details some of the stumbling blocks in integrating the technology into existing DUI monitoring programs.

PRIMARY SOURCE

Sanctioning and Supervising Impaired Drivers:

Technology Overview—Ignition Interlock Systems What Is an Ignition Interlock System?

An ignition interlock is a sophisticated system that tests for alcohol on a driver's breath. It is a device that requires a vehicle operator to blow into a small handheld alcohol sensor unit that is attached to a vehicle's dashboard. The car cannot be started if a BAC is above a preset level (usually 0.02 to 0.04). Alcohol safety interlocks that meet the standards issued by NHTSA (see the See [sic] NHTSA Conforming Products List and Technical Information Regarding Alcohol and Drug Law Enforcement Technology) not only require a test to start the engine, but also require a test every few minutes while driving. Called the "rolling or running retest," it prevents a friend from starting the car and then allowing an impaired driver from taking [sic] over the wheel (NHTSA guidelines call for only one subsequent test and the Alberta, Canada standard calls for multiple running retests). With modern safeguards, alcohol safety interlocks are extremely difficult to circumvent when properly installed and monitored every 30 to 60 days.

When used by the courts or state motor vehicle departments in conjunction with a monitoring, reporting, and support program, the ignition interlock system provides DWI offenders with an alternative to full license suspension. Its use has spread rapidly across the country and as of late 1999, 37 states have enacted legislation providing for its integration into the DWI adjudication and sentencing process.

Who Uses This Technology?

All DUI offenders have the potential to benefit from the use of the ignition interlock—it's [sic] installation allows offenders to maintain their responsibilities while also reminding them that their behavior has a direct impact on their right to drive. Court systems and motor vehicle administrations agree that it is a valuable tool because it deters individuals from driving while intoxicated while the device is installed. Additionally, when its use is required as a provision of probation/parole, the threat of doing jail time better ensures that DUI offenders will correctly use the device each and every time he/she [sic] gets behind the wheel. DUI offenders benefit from the device as well. Their lives, and those of family members who share the use of the car, can remain relatively undisrupted—individuals can go to work, pick up children, run errands, etc.

Legislators and government officials like this program because in most cases, the installation and maintenance fees, which run about $60 per month, are paid for by the DUI offenders. Thus, the program can be self-sustaining and does not necessarily affect taxpayers.

The Federal government, in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), supports the use of the ignition interlock. Section 164 of the TEA-21 Restoration Act indicates that state laws regarding second and subsequent convictions for driving while intoxicated or driving under the influence of alcohol (DWI/DUI) must, among other provisions, "Require that all motor vehicles of repeat intoxicated drivers be impounded or immobilized for some period of time during the license suspension period, or require the installation of an ignition interlock system on all motor vehicles of such drivers for some period of time after the end of the suspension." TEA-21 requires that states have such repeat intoxicated driver laws in place by October 1, 2000. States without these laws will have a portion of their Federal-aid highway con-struction funds redirected into other state safety activities, beginning in Fiscal Year 2001.

Does This Technology Work?

Yes. Not only can ignition interlocks reduce recidivism while they are installed, but the data that is recorded by them can also be used to predict future behaviors of DUI offenders—their recording devices can show patterns of abuse that can lead to DWI/DUIs (offers insight into offender behaviors ). For example, the most frequent time of day for recording elevated BAC levels is 7AM. This figure indicates a night of heavy drinking. Additionally, their use can stop individuals from driving drunk during high-risk time periods—from 12AM-3AM.

Are There Major Stumbling Blocks to Technology Integration?

Yes. While "breath alcohol ignition interlock devices, when embedded in a comprehensive monitoring program, lead to 40-95 percent reductions in the rate of repeat DWI offenses of convicted DWI offenders,"11 the technology has not been widely integrated into the field. According to Dr. Paul Marques in his position paper, Alcohol Ignition Interlock Devices, published for the International Council on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety, a number of stumbling blocks are present, including:

• The protective effect of the interlock lasts only as long as it remains installed on the vehicle. The likelihood of repeat DUI offenses rises back to previous levels once it is removed from the car.
• Only a small percentage of eligible offenders ever enter an interlock program. As a result, interlocks have not yet made a large contribution to highway safety (at the population level). This may change when many more states, provinces, and nations adopt interlock programs.
• The most dangerous repeat DWI offenders only rarely become eligible for an interlock and then only for a brief period of time because of the manner in which interlocks are assigned to prior DWI offenders (interlock use is not necessarily widespread and sentencing procedures are inconsistent). Research is called for that would evaluate the impact of lowering the threshold for entry into an interlock program and raising the threshold for exit from an interlock program. If such an approach was successful, it could put more of the most dangerous repeat offenders under the control of a program and retain them until evidence was available documenting their readiness to drive without an external monitor.
• Not all drivers of interlock-equipped vehicles will be equally motivated to comply with interlock restriction and monitoring requirements. Authorities need to be attentive to these differences. The evidence base for interlock effectiveness in reducing DWI is strong but most studies to date have evaluated the effects of interlocks on offenders who are motivated to be compliant with the law.
• The majority of convicted DWI offenders whose licenses are suspended choose to drive anyway, and since an alcohol interlock program can improve monitoring and prevent impaired driving, it is worth evaluating the public safety impact of an early or immediate post-conviction interlock requirement relative to simply suspending the driver's license.
• It is impractical to require that an interlock system be installed on every vehicle owned by someone who will be required to use an interlock device. As an alternative the driver license of such drivers should be clearly marked showing that the driving privilege is exclusively contingent upon use of interlock vehicles.
• In the future, the interlock may become an integral part of advanced driver recognition and control systems. In the meantime it is very easy for a driver to circumvent the interlock by using a different vehicle without the interlock. Accordingly, at the current stage of technological development, an offender's motivation for compliance with the interlock restriction is expected to be a prime factor in determining effectiveness. Brief motivational interventions delivered while drivers are captive in the interlock program may help improve motivation for making lasting behavior changes.

SIGNIFICANCE

A high percentage of traffic accidents in the United States are caused by intoxicated drivers, because alcohol consumption significantly diminishes motor skills. Besides being hampered by impaired vision, intoxicated drivers have much more trouble understanding traffic signals, reading sign boards, observing traffic, and controlling or altering their own movements.

Driving under the influence is a crime, yet according to the NCADD website, it is one of the most common offenses in the country, resulting in a vehicle crash every thirty-three minutes somewhere in the United States and causing around 16,000 fatalities every year. A University of Chicago survey indicated that DUI cases have increased markedly since 1997.

Law-enforcement agencies have developed various means of deterring drunk driving. Applying for a driver's license, for example, implies automatic consent to alcohol-detection tests requested by an officer, including breath, blood, and urine tests. A variety of other technologies and screenings can also detect alcohol in the driver's system. These include passive breath and saliva screening, breath alcohol test calibration, and evidential breath alcohol testing. Proactive measures include vehicle ignition interlock systems and remote monitoring technology for repeat offenders.

Typical DUI offender programs can include deferred prosecution, in which an offender is awarded a deferred trial; being jailed for a day or two to be educated about the hazards of DWI; and being subjected to a victim panel of drunk driving accident victims' relatives. Drivers licenses can be reinstated if no repeat offense occurs in a stated time frame.

FURTHER RESOURCES

Web sites

About.com: Alcoholism/Substance Abuse. "Drunk Driving Increases, Study Shows" 〈http://alcoholism.about.com/od/dui/a/dui050420.htm〉 (accessed January 14, 2006).

About.com: Alcoholism/Substance Abuse. "Penalties for Drunk Driving" 〈http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/drive/a/aa082797.htm〉 (accessed January 14, 2006).

America's Health Insurance Plans. "Highway and Traffic Safety in Managed Care Toolkit" 〈http://www.ahip.org/links/NHTSA_Site/resources.html〉 (accessed January 14, 2006).

NCADD: National Commission Against Drunk Driving. "Alcohol Technology Resource Center" 〈http://www.ncadd.com/alcohol_tech_reso_center.cfm〉 (accessed January 14, 2006).