Ignition Interlocks
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 10:28 PM

A new study analyzing New Mexico's experience with requiring first-time DUI offenders to have an ignition interlock device installed in their cars has been in the news the past couple of days. (Interlocks prevent the car from starting unless an alcohol breath test is passed.) The study shows, basically, that this interlock requirement, when it actually results in the devices being installed, is pretty effective at reducing the probability that a driver will be caught driving drunk again. The previous research base suggested that interlock mandates were effective for drivers who had multiple DUI convictions, but results were ambiguous concerning first-time DUI offenders.

Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman notes how well-targeted the interlock mandate is:

It [the interlock mandate] also has benefits for the culprits. In most states, the standard method for stopping drunken drivers is to revoke their licenses so they aren't allowed to drive at all. Under this policy [interlocks], they may drive all they want as long as they're stone cold sober. It incapacitates the incorrigible while sparing the repentant. A canceled license, which lets the offender police his own conduct, does the opposite.

Will this new evidence be enough to convince one Arizona state representative to change his mind about interlock mandates for first-time DUI offenders...yet again?

Labels: alcohol, driving, interlocks

 
Ignition Interlocks
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 8:53 PM

Today's New York Times includes an article on automobile ignition interlocks, those devices that are designed to prevent a car from starting if the driver is alcohol impaired. The theme of the article is that technology has not developed to the point where it would make sense to require interlocks for all cars, as opposed to only the rides of drivers who have been convicted of drunk driving.

The interlock devices that are sometimes court-mandated cost about $125 to install, plus monthly maintenance fees of $60 to $75, according to the article. How do they work?

To start a car, the driver must puff a breath into the unit. To avoid cheating, the breath puff is measured and must be given in a uniquely identifiable way that would be hard for a person who is not the driver to duplicate. Inside the unit, a small fuel cell converts any alcohol into electrical energy, which is measured and recorded. If no alcohol is detected, the driver can start the car. If alcohol is detected, the system turns off the power to the ignition.

The breath puff isn’t just for starting cars. While driving, the driver must periodically blow into the system to keep the car running. Typically, the data is downloaded every 30 days and is available to probation officers and court officials.

A related article talks about options for drivers who want to test their own blood alcohol content before they get behind the wheel. That article notes that these unofficial tests need not be accurate, but fails to note that the accuracy of police-administered breathalyzers also is highly questionable -- for evidence, read some of the posts (such as this one) at DUI Blog.

Vice Squad checks in on ignition interlocks from time to time.

Labels: alcohol, driving, interlocks

 
Arizona Legislator Changes His Mind
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 11:18 PM

Last month, Arizona passed a law requiring ignition interlock devices to be installed in automobiles driven by people who have been convicted of driving under the influence, even after a first (and relatively minor) DUI offense. State Representative John Kavanagh voted for the measure. But now he has publicly repudiated his vote. Why? He read the research base about the effects of such laws, and found that the evidence suggests that they do not make it more likely that first-time offenders will not re-offend. So Representative Kavanagh has introduced an amendment that would only require the ignition interlock for first-time nonextreme DUI offenders if they were involved in a traffic accident and committed (another) traffic violation at the time of their DUI arrest.

My understanding of the research accords with that of Representative Kavanagh. (I gained that understanding by reading memos written by more than twenty of my students on whether Illinois should adopt a first-time DUI offender interlock mandate.) But I also wonder if the measure of effectiveness is too narrow -- it concerns re-offending by first-time DUI violators, and there is basically no evidence to show that the interlock mandate decreases such re-offending. But that is not to say that the possibility of having an interlock device installed might not help deter non-offenders from becoming first-time offenders. There also is an issue with the length of time for which the interlock is mandated (and what those time lengths were in the previous studies), or whether the mandated interlock actually is installed. And it might make sense to offer an interlock as a choice that a convicted drunk driver could make in lieu of some other penalties; perhaps his insurance company would "subsidize" that choice by offering lower rates (a smaller increase, presumably) if the interlock is installed. (One problem is that the devices that require on-the-go retesting can be cumbersome and distract a driver, however.)

But what about this Representative Kavanagh, who has put himself in danger of being cast as a fickle flip-flopper, someone who won't stay the course, who actually allows evidence to influence his votes? The description at the bottom of the linked article explains: "State Rep. John Kavanagh is a Republican from Fountain Hills. He [is] a retired police officer who has a Ph.D. in criminal justice and heads the criminal justice program at Scottsdale Community College. He previously taught courses in statistics and research methodology at Arizona State University."

Labels: alcohol, driving, interlocks

 
Ignition Interlocks
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 9:43 AM

Yesterday I intended to say something about ignition interlock devices for cars, but I got derailed. What I have to say about them is that they are gaining in popularity, in terms of being mandated for drunk-driving offenders.

Interlock devices try to determine whether a driver is impaired; if impairment is detected, the car will not start, or, if it is already running, the car will be shut down. There are various technologies that are available (including Saab's Alko-key), but most involve having the driver blow some air into a detector. Frequent retests are required, in part to dissuade people from using surrogates to bypass the test. (Many people who occassionally drive after doing a bit of drinking might like to have such a device installed, to protect them against inadvertantly driving while over the legal limit; such people will not be interested in circumventing the control. But some people, alas, will prefer to evade a positive test and drive legally drunk rather than waiting until sobriety or other means of locomotion arrive.)

In 2005, New Mexico (following an earlier policy adopted in Maryland) required that first-time drunk driving offenders have ignition interlock devices installed, and the law was credited with inducing a fall in drunk driving deaths. Mothers Against Drunk Driving is now pushing for a similar measures nationally. In Victoria, Australia, January 1 brought in a new law that would require interlocks for young first-time drunk driving offenders.

Interlock systems do not work if they are not installed, however. It seems like that is the frequent outcome in the state of Washington, even after a court orders that an offender acquire an ignition interlock: 4,400 interlock systems have been installed in Washington, while 28,000 drivers have been ordered to obtain the devices.

Labels: alcohol, driving, interlocks

 
Vicewire, 9/12/2004
- posted by Ryan @ 8:23 PM

1) A gunfight in Mexico killed the head of a drug cartel and 2 others, while 5 of his attackers were killed by police officers.

2) Another case of crackdown on underage drinking- 42 teens associated with a Texas high school football team were apparently drinking in a teacher's house. They were fined $65 each. Now they are going after the adults, the police chief explained, to determine if they provided the alcohol to the teens.

3) Here is a story about a lawsuit against the in-car sobriety measurers. The man passed out after blowing into his ignition interlock and crashed his car.

4) And finally, a new story on one of Vice Squad's favorite historical curiosities: the Prohibtion Party. Only now there is a controversy over the present presidential candidate, and whether he is more interested in the goal of alcohol prohibtion or the goal of making really cool looking buttons. So the party has split, and Colorado will have 2 different Prohibtion candidates, the old guard and the young party upstarts. In 2000, the Prohibtion Party candidate, the same one since 1984 and who is running again this year, received 208 votes. There is a nice historical reprise of the ups and downs of the party, as well as some interesting rhetoric from party dissident Gene Amondson. "I'd rather have 100 Al Capones in every city than alcohol sold in every grocery store," he said. "During the 13 years of Prohibition the budget was balanced, prisons were emptied, mental institutions emptied and cirrhosis of the liver declined." For more, search Vice Squad archives for posts on Prohibition and the Anti-Saloon League.

Labels: alcohol, drugs, interlocks, Prohibition, teens, Vicewire

 
Doctor or Informant?
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 3:12 PM

Remember that fellow in Pennsylvania who lost his driver's license after he told his doctor that he drank more than a six-pack of beer per day? (The doctor probably felt compelled to bring his case to the license authorities, given state law, though the doctor later refused a request to clear him to drive.) He claimed only to drink at home after work, without driving afterwards. Anyway, the patient went to court to get his license reinstated, and the judge yesterday fashioned a compromise. The man can get his license reinstated, but only if he installs in his car an ignition locking system that will prevent him from driving unless he passes an in-car breath test. The locking device will cost about $1,000 per year, apparently.

I do worry about laws that require doctors to become informants, especially when there is no clear and present danger of a crime about to be committed. Patients will be even more likely to lie about their alcohol use, and the extent of alcohol consumption can be an important piece of information in determining a proper diagnosis and treatment plan.

In Minneapolis, a hospital doctor refused to take a blood sample from a suspect arrested in a fatal stabbing. Police wanted a measurement of the suspect's blood-alcohol content. The doctor did not have the suspect's informed consent. The doctor also refused to take the sample following a phone call from a judge. The doctor was arrested, and the blood sample was eventually (5 hours after the initial "presentation") taken by another physician following the arrival of a signed court order. It now looks as if the arrested doctor will not suffer any further legal or administrative sanctions for his decision, which on the surface appears to have been in compliance with hospital guidelines.

Labels: alcohol, breathalyzer, driving, informants, interlocks

 
The Saab Alcokey
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 7:29 PM

Saab is developing a system that would prevent someone from starting his or her car following a failed breathalyzer test. One advantage of this system relative to existing alternatives is that it should be about 90% cheaper, around 250 euros:

The Alcokey concept is an adaptation of existing anti-theft technology. When the driver presses the 'doors open' button on the car’s remote control fob, the alcohol sensor is also switched on.

The driver then blows into a small mouthpiece at the end of the fob to provide a breath sample which passes down a small internal tube containing a semi-conductor sensor the size of a pin-head. The sample is analysed and a small green or red light on the fob is illuminated.

If the green light is shown, the key will transmit an 'all clear' signal to the car's electronic control unit. This is in addition to the usual signal the key always transmits to switch off the engine immobiliser.

But if a red light is shown, the 'all clear' signal will not be sent and the engine will remain immobilised. The software instructing the engine immobiliser can be adjusted according to the alcohol limits in operation where the car is registered.

Labels: alcohol, driving, interlocks, Sweden

 
Improvements in Sobriety-Sensing Cars
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 11:31 AM

The Guardian from December 23 notes the ongoing development of a device that judges the hand-eye coordination of drivers. An infrared sensor can determine where a driver is looking, and this information can be compared with simultaneous data from steering wheel movements. Alcohol consumption causes eyes to slow down, which actually decreases the time interval between eye movement and steering wheel adjustment. Potential interventions include a verbal warning to stop driving, automatic notification of the police, or the activation of speed controls. The device costs some 40,000 pounds right now. Nevertheless, these sorts of technologies have a lot to recommend them as regulatory controls, because they target the real problem -- unsafe driving -- much more closely than do many other policies. (Even equal blood alcohol levels can mean something much different at different times and across drivers.) And the device is unconcerned with the cause of the poor driving, whether it be eating a hamburger while driving or a high blood alcohol content.

Labels: alcohol, driving, interlocks