Drunk driving has been a growing issue for many years in the U.S. Various organizations including the government have attempted to reduce DUI incidences and solve the problem by implementing various initiatives. Penalty fees, jail sentencing, DUI classes, and driver's license suspensions are just a few of those initiatives that are currently being used to control drunk driving repeat offenders.
Just recently technology such as the ignition interlock device (IID) has entered the scene and is being used by the courts. However, is this new technology working to solve this issue? Do these devices indeed reduce the risk of DUIs in repeat drunk drivers?
What the ignition interlock device does exactly is measure the amount of alcohol on a driver‘s breath. It is installed in the car and if the offender needs to go anywhere, he/she provides a breath sample by blowing into the device. If the instrument detects alcohol, the car will not start. IIDs were created in the 1960s and they‘ve done research with them, but it wasn't until the 80's that they were used by the courts. California was the very first state to enact legislation that authorized judges to order DUI offenders to install IIDs. California was also the first state in which the ignition interlock program was evaluated. It's still taken awhile for all the states to adopt this type of technology.
In September 2005 the California Department of Motor Vehicles produced a series of studies involving the ignition interlock device. These studies are published in a report and are available to the public for review. What researchers discovered is that the devices have the potential to actually be effective at reducing DUI incidences. The kicker, however, is that judges in California were not consistent in ordering drunk driving offenders to install an IID. Technically, the IID is effective, but it's the actual program that is not effective.
Here are some ideas that researchers proposed to improve the DUI program in California:
1. Create a better system of monitoring DUI offenders who have told by the courts to put an IID in their car. Judges need to be consistent in ordering these devices because what would be the point of having these instruments if the courts won't use them?
2. Give drunk driving repeat offenders the option to reinstate their driver's license if they agree to put the IID in their car. This gives repeat offenders an added incentive. Also, another incentive to encourage offenders to install an IID is to reduce the time of the license suspension.
3. Impound a person's car if they are caught driving without the IID in the car. This applies to those people restricted to driving an IID-equipped vehicle.
4. Do more research on IIDs and find more effective programs to implement these devices. It's up to the California Department of Motor Vehicles to be proactive and lead this task force and in addition to finding the resources to fund this initiative.
5. Do not emphasize the use of the IID for first-time offenders. Currently there is no evidence that the device is effective at reducing the reoccurrence of a DUI in first-time offenders.
6. Continue to support the law that requires judges to order DUI offenders to install the IID in their vehicle.
Ignition interlock devices are only one piece of the puzzle in solving this problem of drunk driving. The research has been done to show that they are indeed effective in reducing the risks of repeat drunk driving, but it's up to the courts to be consistent when implementing them.
Disclaimer: All information on this site is provided for informational purposes only! By no means is any
information presented herein intended to substitute for the advice provided to you by any health care or other professional
or organization.
