Ignition Interlock Report 2017

It's been a decade now that Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) has been pressing states to adopt ignition interlocks as a measure to prevent drunk drivers from repeating their crime. An ignition interlock, or car breathalyzer, prevents a vehicle from starting if the driver has been drinking.

2.3 Million Attempts To Drive Drunk Stopped By Ignition Interlocks

State-by-State Counts For 12 months & 10 Years

March 14, 2017

©Mothers Against Drunk Driving | madd.org | 877.ASK.MADD

Ignition interlocks stopped 350,000 drunk driving attempts from December 2015 to December 2016. Since 2006, ignition interlocks have prevented 2.3 million attempts to drive by someone with a .08 blood alcohol concentration.

Ignition Interlocks, One Year Later In 2016, Mothers Against Drunk Driving® (MADD) wanted to quantify the effectiveness of ignition interlocks. MADD had been advocating for ignition interlocks for all drunk drivers, starting with the first offense, for the past 10 years, with the firm belief that technology is the best defense available to combat the tragedies caused by drunk driving.

The findings were both astounding and alarming. MADD collected data from 11 ignition interlock manufacturers and found that ignition interlocks had stopped 1.77 million attempts to drive drunk.

One year later, ignition interlocks have stopped another 350,000 drunk driving attempts and 2.3 million since 2006, when MADD first launched the Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving.

As part of the Campaign, MADD’s top legislative priority in every state has been to pass ignition interlock laws for all drunk driving offenders. These small devices, installed in the vehicle of a drunk driving offender, prevent the vehicle from starting if the driver’s blood alcohol concentration is above a pre-set limit. Every state in the nation has an ignition interlock law of some kind. MADD’s goal is to for every state to have the most effective ignition interlock law, which is one that applies to every drunk driver after the first offense. When MADD’s Campaign started, only New Mexico had an all-offender ignition interlock law. Today, 28 states and the District of Columbia require ignition interlocks for offenders with a .08 blood alcohol concentration (BAC) and above after the first offense. MADD is committed to working with the other 22 states to pass similar laws, and to help every state optimize its laws and expand the use of technology to stop the tragedies caused by drunk driving. By combining existing technology with high-visibility law enforcement and development of an advanced technology to passively detect alcohol on a driver’s breath, MADD’s Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving will create a nation of No More Victims.

MADD released its first-ever Ignition Interlock report in February 2016 with plans to update these number annually.

©Mothers Against Drunk Driving | madd.org | 877.ASK.MADD

Starts prevented with an interlock with driver ≥ .08 BAC December 1, 2006 to December 1, 2016

Effective date of current law

Type of Law

10 years 2006-16

Past year 2015-16*

State

Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado

7/1/2014 1/1/2009 9/1/2007 4/1/2009 7/1/2010 1/1/2009 1/1/2012 1/1/2015 10/8/2016 10/1/2008 5/1/1999 1/1/2011 10/1/2000 1/1/2009 1/1/2015 7/1/1995 7/1/2011 6/25/2015 7/1/2007 12/1/2013 10/1/2016 1/1/2006 10/1/2010 7/1/2011 10/1/2014 3/1/2014 5/1/2009 1/1/2009 7/1/2005 1/1/2016 1/1/2010 6/1/2005 8/1/2010 12/1/2007 9/1/2008 11/1/2011 1/1/2008 10/1/2003 7/1/2016 10/1/2014

All All All All All All All All

1,943

765

11,137 78,849 50,969 195,687 87,058 43,790

1,648

10,245 11,651 35,756 11,010 14,282

Pilot

Connecticut

Delaware

3,861

833

District of Columbia

Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana

.15 BAC Optional

68,236 26,074

8,925 4,638 1,382

All

7,358 5,607

Repeat

607

All

101,255

6,156 1,780

Optional .10 BAC

7,096

Iowa

104,243 81,126

15,017 11,928

Kansas

All

Kentucky Louisiana

.15 BAC

2,289

869

All All All

74,398 11,670 42,163 31,845 24,193 58,216

15,870

Maine

1,581 5,635 3,577 2,182 6,290 1,647

Maryland

Massachusetts

Repeat .17 BAC .16 BAC

Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska

All All

3,862

83,097

11,387

Repeat

5,230

319

All

26,210

3,647

Nevada

.18 BAC

6,222 9,419

855

New Hampshire

All

1,412

New Jersey New Mexico

.15 BAC

56,143 63,911 85,523 16,701 20,535 51,719 41,100 65,575 314

15,002

All All

8,592 7,162 2,183

New York

North Carolina North Dakota

.15 BAC Optional Repeat .15 BAC

Ohio

2,883

Oklahoma

12,474

Oregon

All

4,045 5,370 1,104 1,648

Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina

Repeat

All

2,565 4,987

.15 BAC

Continues next page

©Mothers Against Drunk Driving | madd.org | 877.ASK.MADD

Effective date of current law

Type of Law Optional

10 years 2006-16

Past year 2015-16*

State

South Dakota

7/1/2011 7/1/2013 9/1/2015 7/1/2009 7/1/2016 7/1/2012 1/1/2009 6/1/2008 7/1/2010 7/1/2009

1,542

Tennessee

All All All All All All All

44,966

7,489

Texas Utah

244,991 13,683

27,694

2,573

Vermont Virginia

6,083

817

17,044 90,425 24,331 211,972

2,552

Washington West Virginia

14,133

2,730

Wisconsin Wyoming

.15 BAC .15 BAC

37,299

15,028

971

Total

2,332,323

348,727

*Past-year data: Dec. 1, 2015-Dec. 1, 2016 Source: Data collected from the following ignition interlock manufacturers: ADS; Blow and Drive; Intoxalock; LMG; Smart Start; Sensolock; ACS; Draeger; Budget IID; Simple IID (Smart Start data is from 2010-2016).

New State Interlock Laws Enacted in 2016

Over the past year, three states and the Washington, D.C., passed all-offender ignition interlock laws. Other states added incentives or requirements that will lead to increased use of ignition interlocks. Currently, 28 states and Washington, D.C., have all-offender ignition interlock laws.

The significant changes to state laws in 2016:

 Maryland, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington, D.C. enacted all-offender interlock laws, bringing the total to 28 states and the District of Columbia.

 Pennsylvania enacted a law requiring devices for refusals and first-time offenders with a BAC of .10 or greater. This law goes into effect in August 2017.

 California, Georgia and Ohio enacted laws incentivizing the use of interlocks: o California: Effective January 2019, interlocks will be mandatory for repeat offenders and first-time offenders in injury crashes. Other first-time offenders may choose between: 1) interlock use for six months available upon arrest with no route/time restrictions; 2) one-year license suspension upon conviction; 3) 30-day license suspension followed by 330 days on a time/route-restricted license. o Georgia: Effective July 2017, first-time offenders will have a choice upon arrest: 1) license suspension or route/time-restricted license for at least four months and DUI school; or 2) interlock for at least four months with no route/time restrictions. o Ohio : Annie’s Law, effective April 2017, will allow a first-time offender to use an interlock with unlimited driving privileges during a license suspension period. Offenders who use an interlock will have their license suspension period reduced by half, and they will have no route/time restrictions. A route/time-restricted license is still an option during their license suspension.  West Virginia lawmakers defeated a measure eliminating Administrative License Revocation (ALR). West Virginia is one of 41 states and the District of Columbia with an ALR law. The use of interlocks is tied to the ALR law and available as an option post-arrest. Interlocks during ALR has contributed to the state’s 50 percent decline in drunk driving deaths. Repealing the law would have been devastating. West Virginia’s ALR law is one other states should replicate.

 Mississippi and Tennessee enacted laws requiring interlock users to prove compliance while on the device before having it removed and being relicensed.

For more resources on interlocks, please visit madd.org/interlock. MADD has an action plan in place on how each state can take legislative and non-legislative steps to improve their law at http://www.madd.org/laws/law-overview/Overview-of-first-offender-interlock-laws.pdf.

Studies on the Effectiveness of Ignition Interlocks

McGinty, Emma E. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, “Ignition Interlock Laws: Effects on Fatal Motor Vehicle Crashes, 1982–2013,” January, 2017  Ignition interlock laws reduce alcohol-involved fatal crashes. Increasing the spread of interlock laws that are mandatory for all offenders would have significant public health benefit.  Laws requiring interlocks for all drunk driving offenders with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .08 or greater were associated with a 7 percent decrease in the rate of drunk driving fatal crashes.  Laws requiring interlocks for first-time offenders with a BAC of .15 or greater were associated with an 8 percent decrease in the rate of drunk driving fatal crashes.  Laws requiring interlocks for segments of high-risk drunk driving offenders, such as repeat offenders, may reduce alcohol-involved fatal crashes after 2 years of implementation. California DMV, “Specific Deterrent Evaluation of the Ignition Interlock Pilot Program in California,” June 2016  Ignition interlocks are 74% more effective in reducing DUI recidivism than license suspension alone for first offenders during first 182 days after conviction.  Interlocks are 45% more effective in preventing a repeat DUI incidence when compared to license suspension alone during days 183 to 365 after conviction. (Many first-time offenders have the device removed after 182 days of use.)  Ignition interlocks are 70% more effective than license suspension alone in preventing repeat offenses for second-time offenders, compared to license suspension alone, for the first 364 days of use.  Interlocks are 58% more effective in preventing a repeat DUI incidence during days 365 to 730 days of use for second-time offenders.  Third-time offenders who only had a suspended license were 3.4 times more likely to have a fourth DUI conviction or incidence compared to the interlocked offender group.  Because interlocked offenders are able to be part of society and provide for their family by driving to work, grocery stores, restaurants and any anywhere else, their crash risk is most likely similar to the general driving population in California, but higher than offenders whose licenses were suspended or revoked and not permitted to drive. Kaufman, University of Pennsylvania, “Impact of State Ignition Interlock Laws on Alcohol- Involved Crash Deaths in the United States,” March 2016  DUI deaths decreased by 15% in states that enacted all-offender interlock laws.  States with mandatory interlock laws saw a decrease in deaths of 0.8 per 100,000 people each year — which is comparable to lives shown to have been saved from mandatory airbag laws (0.9 lives saved per 100,000 people). Mothers Against Drunk Driving, “How Technology Stopped 1.77 million Drunk Drivers,” February 10, 2016  Ignition interlocks have prevented more than 1.77 million would-be drunk drivers with a blood alcohol concentration of .08 or greater in the U.S. http://www.talklikemadd.org/books/IgnitionInterlockReport2016/

Ullman, Darin F. International Review of Law and Economics 45, “Locked and not loaded: First time offenders and state ignition interlock programs,” 2016, 1–13  The interlock program should be applied to first time offenders who are not just high-BAC offenders.  Additionally, the interlock program provides a low cost solution, paid for by offenders, to a dangerous and often fatal activity that imposes large social and economic costs on society.  To maximize public health, states with weak interlock laws or states that currently have no interlock program that require mandatory participation for first time off-enders, should adopt strong ignition interlock programs to prevent future costly alcohol-related fatal crashes.  Results indicate that the potential for interlock programs to prevent alcohol involved driving and alcohol-related crashes is most significant when the program is applied to a broader cross- section of offenders and a higher proportion of offenders have the interlock device installed. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Mayer, “Ignition Interlocks – What You Need to Know: A Toolkit for Policymakers, Highway Safety Professionals, and Advocates (2nd Edition),” 2014. DOT HS 811 883  The record of breath tests logged into an ignition interlock has been effective in predicting the future drunk driving recidivism risk.  Offenders with higher rates of failed BAC tests have higher rates of post-ignition interlock recidivism. National Transportation Safety Board, “Safety Report Reaching Zero: Actions to Eliminate Alcohol-Impaired Driving,” 2013  Administrative license suspension or revocation laws are an effective means of reducing alcohol- impaired traffic fatalities, and such laws could be strengthened by requiring that individuals arrested for drunk driving install an alcohol ignition interlock as a condition of license reinstatement. McCartt, Leaf, Farmer, and Eichelberger, Traffic Injury Prevention, “Washington State’s Alcohol Ignition Interlock Law: Effects on Recidivism Among First-Time DUI Offenders,” 2013.  Mandating interlock orders for all first drunk driving convictions was associated with reductions in recidivism, even with low interlock use rates, and reductions in crashes.  Additional gains are likely achievable with higher rates.  Jurisdictions should seek to increase use rates and reconsider permitting reductions in drunk driving charges to other traffic offenses without interlock order requirements. Voas, Tippetts, and Grosz, Alcoholism Clinical Experimental Research, “Administrative Reinstatement Interlock Programs: Florida, A 10-Year Study.”  It is not surprising that the recidivism rate rose with the number of years of revocation.  In keeping with past research, the recidivism rate while on the interlock was approximately two- thirds lower than after the units were removed.

For more information, please contact Becky Iannotta at becky.iannotta@madd.org, or 202.600.2032

Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7

Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker