Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

While drunken driving arrest rates have plummeted since the 1980s, repeat drunken driving offenders remain a serious and often deadly problem. One intervention which has demonstrated promise in reducing repeat Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) offences is the ignition interlock. The ignition interlock is a breath-alcohol testing device attached to the ignition system of a motor vehicle which prevents the vehicle from starting if the driver produces a breath sample which exceeds a pre-determined alcohol level. The ignition interlock device also collects data as to the number of attempted starts, breath-alcohol levels from the starts, retests and violations resulting in the vehicle being ‘locked out’ and unavailable for use. This paper examines the data reports collected on a sample of interlock users who were court-ordered to install the device as a result of a DWI conviction in the state of Arkansas. Almost half of the subjects experienced one or more violations with a breath alcohol level that exceeded the 0.08 g/dl legal limit. More than 20 per cent had violations at the very high level of 0.15 g/dl. These data suggest that the ignition interlock may be very effective in preventing DWI recidivism among the problem ‘hard-core’ drunk driver.

Keywords

drunken driving ignition interlock recidivism routine activities theory

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baker

Beck

(1990). Ignition interlocks for DWI offenders: A useful tool? Alcohol, Drugs and Driving, 7(2), 107–115.

Beck

K. H.

Rauch

W. J.

Baker

E. A.

(1997, September). The effects of alcohol ignition interlock license restrictions on multiple alcohol offenders: A randomized trial in Maryland. Paper presented at the 14th International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety, Annecy, France.

Clarke

R.V.

(1995). Situational crime prevention. In Tonry

Farrington

D. P.

(Eds.), Building a safer society: Strategic approaches to crime prevention. (Crime and Justice. Vol. 19, pp. 91–150). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Cohen

L. E.

Felson

(1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach, American Sociological Review, 44 (August), 588–608.

Copes

(1999). Routine Activities and Motor Vehicle Theft: A Crime Specific Approach. Journal of Crime and Justice, 22(2), 125–146.

Felson

Cohen

L. E.

(1980). Human Ecology and Crime: A Routine Activity Approach. Human Ecology, 8, 389–406.

Forney

R. B.

Jr. (1999, October). Recognizing alcohol impairment, observation and testing. Presentation at the American Bar Association Traffic Court Seminar, New Orleans.

Fulkerson

(2003). Blow and go: The breath-analyzed ignition interlock as a technological response to DWI. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 29(1), 219–235.

Haapaniemi

(1998). Ignition interlocks deter impaired drivers, Traffic Safety, 98(3) (May/June), 16–17.

10.

Houston

Richardson

(2004). Drinking-and-driving in America: A test of behavioral assumptions underlying public policy. Political Research Quarterly, 57(1), 53–65.

11.

International Council on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety. (2001). Alcohol ignition interlock devices (I: Position paper). Oslo, Norway: ICADTS.

12.

Jacobs

(2003). Ignition interlock devices and immobilization (Phase I Report). Wisconsin: Department of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Safety.

13.

Jones

(1993). The effectiveness of Oregon's ignition interlock program. In Utzelmann

H.-D.

Berghaus

Kroj

(Eds.), Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety — T92 Vol. 3, pp. 1460–1465. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety. Köln: Verlage TÜV Rheinland GmbH.

14.

Maruschak

(1999). DWI offenders under correctional supervision (Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report). Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.

15.

Morse

Elliott

(1992). Effects of ignition interlock devices on DUI recidivism: Findings from a longitudinal study in Hamilton County, Ohio. Crime & Delinquency, 38, 131–157.

16.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2005). Traffic safety facts 2003. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation.

17.

Neugebauer

G. T.

(2002). Alcohol Ignition Interlocks: Magic Bullet or Poison Pill? PGH Journal of Technology, Law & Policy, 2, 2.

18.

Popkin

Lederhaus

Stewart

Martell

Birckmayer

(1992). An evaluation of the effectiveness of the interlock in preventing recidivism in a population of multiple DWI offenders (Final Report for North Carolina Governor's Highway Safety Program). Chapel Hill, NC: UNC Safety Research Center.

19.

Raub

Lucke

Wark

(2001). Illinois Secretary of State Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Device (BAIID) Program Evaluation and Final Report Volume II: Pilot Implementation Evaluation. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Center for Public Safety.

20.

Renzema

(2003). Electronic monitoring's impact on reoffending. Retrieved February 6, 2005 from http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/doc-pdf/elecmon.pdf.

21.

Rogers

Schoenig

(1994). A time series evaluation of California's 1982 driving-under-the-influence legislative reforms. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 26(1), 63–78.

22.

Simpson

H. M.

Mayhew

D. R.

Bierness

D. J.

(1996). Dealing with the hardcore drinking driver. Ottawa: Traffic Injury Research Foundation.

23.

Taylor

R. B.

(1997). Crime in small scale places: What we know, what we can prevent, and what else we need to know. In Taylor

Bazemore

Boland

(Eds.), Plenary papers of the 1997 conference on criminal justice research and evaluation (pp. 7–22). Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs.

24.

Voas

R. B.

Fisher

(2001). Court procedures for handling intoxicated drivers. Alcohol Research & Health (Winter), 32–42.

25.

Weinrath

(1997). The ignition interlock program for drunk drivers: A multivariate test. Crime & Delinquency, 43, 42–59.

Ignition Interlock Monthly Data Reports

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References