Blog Post

Ignition Interlock Devices Coming To A State Near You?

Posted by: Brett Hollett
September 18, 2009
Topic: Legislative Measures

The United States Congress is looking at several bills sponsored by groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (which includes Ford, GM, Toyota, BMW, and Mercedes) to prevent convicted drunk drivers from even being able to start their cars. Almost all states (47 in total) already have in-car breathalyzer laws making "interlock" devices a mandatory punishment for convicted DUI offenders; however Alabama is not one of those states. An ignition interlock device is an in-car breathalyzer that is connected to the ignition; it monitors the amount of alcohol on a driver's breath and prevents a car from starting with a positive reading. Convicted drivers are expected to pay for the interlock unit, the installation, and a monthly rental monitoring fee, which can top $75.00; however some states cover half of the total cost for impoverished or unemployed drivers with funds taken out of fines paid by previous DUI offenders. These bills seek to make in-car breathalyzers standard for DUI convictions in the hopes of eliminating the 13,000 deaths caused by DUI accidents each year in America. One bill on its way to the House is the proposed Highway Bill, which seeks to deny federal highway funding to states that do not make interlock punishments mandatory for first-time DUI offenders. Another bill includes fundraising for research of non-invasive in-car breathalyzers, such as skin or perspiration sensors on the steering wheel, ambient air measurements, or retinal light scans.

States that have interlock installation for DUI offenders have seen a 35% reduction in alcohol related road fatalities. However, these proposed laws are not without opposition. A study commissioned by California in 2004 reveals that drivers who installed an interlock device have a lower risk for subsequent DUI conviction than those without the device; it reduces DUI recidivism by 40-95%. However, the study shows that the interlock device is not a social learning tool, meaning that once the device is removed from the vehicle, the recidivism climbs back up. Further, drivers who installed an interlock device had a higher risk of more accidents than those who did not. Finally, those opposed to the mandatory interlock device for DUI convictions argue that the law may fail to distinguish between the first time accidental DUI offender and the habitual alcoholic DUI offender. Drivers who have had the device say it is embarrassing and burdens drivers with both the expense and the intrusion equally.

There are arguments on both sides. The interlock device clearly helps prevent DUI accidents and convictions while it is installed, but the arguments against its cost and limited post-removal effect are persuasive. Although Alabama has held out on joining the states that impose the interlock punishment, there has been an obvious trend of the law taking effect. For now interlock devices are foreign to the Alabama DUI convicted drivers, but we'll see if that remains to be the case after Congress addresses the proposed legislation. It will take some time; Carl McDonald of MADD estimates a timeframe of about ten years for a majority of states to adopt and enforce an interlock law for all DUI offenders.

Drive Safe!