Daily Archives: November 21, 2006
Individuals convicted of DUI are increasingly required to have an ignition interlock device (IID) installed (at their expense) in their cars — and, as mentioned in yesterday's post, eventually requiring them as standard equipment in all vehicles. These notoriously inaccurate and unreliable gizmos are designed to prevent the ignition from working until after the driver has breathed into a mouthpiece and registered alcohol-free (although it takes little imagination to realize that a drunk driver can start the car by simply having his passenger breathe into the device).
This latest weapon in the "war on drunk driving" has been adopted in many states with the strong lobbying of MADD — and of manufacturers who make a huge profit on the devices. Consider a story in today's (March 16, 2005) Arizona Republic:
First-time DUI offenders could agree to equip their vehicles with an ignition interlock device to prevent drunken driving rather than face suspended driver's licenses under a bill that breezed through the Senate on Tuesday…..
Alberto Gutier, a former highway safety director lobbying for the Arizona Interlock Distributors Association, said increased sales isn't the bill's purpose. (Emphasis added.)
"It's not about expanding the market, it's about preventing drunk driving," Gutier said.
The bottom line, of course, is: Do IIDs prevent drunk driving? Do they make our streets safer? MADD claims that their "research" shows they do:
Interlocks have been shown to be effective in Maryland, Alberta, California and elsewhere with results ranging from 50 to 90 percent reductions in subsequent offenses by those offenders who were assigned interlock devices, compared with those who were not…..
While interlocks are not the only solution, as offenders tend to go back to their old ways once the device is off of the vehicle, they certainly keep the roads safer while these devices are in place.
Effective in California? Keep the roads safer? The California Department of Motor Vehicles released a study entitled An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Ignition Interlock in California: Report to the Legislature of the State of California. Among their conclusions:
The expected effect that an IID order/restriction issued by the court would result in a lower rate of subsequent DUI convictions was not observed. (p. 7) The risk of a subsequent crash was higher for drivers installing an IID, compared to drivers not installing a device; drivers installing an IID had a risk of a subsequent crash that was 84% higher than drivers not installing an IID. (p. 10) The results of this outcome study clearly show that IIDs are not effective in reducing DUI convictions or incidents for first DUI offenders …
Because there is no evidence that interlocks are an effective traffic safety measure for first DUI offenders, the use of the devices should not be emphasized. (p. 22)
Facts notwithstanding, MADD continues its campaign for mandatory installation of ignition interlock devices.