In March of this year, a study conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety took a look at the long-term behavioral impact of 1st time DUI offender interlock laws. Specifically, the study looked at the state of Washington, which in 2004 was one of the earliest states to mandate a year of interlock for all first-time convicted drunk drivers.
The study confirmed what was already trending in ignition interlock research: Washington saw a 12% reduction in the rate of recidivism for first-timers who installed the interlock for the required year versus those who were ordered to, but did not.
For decades research looking at the behavioral impact of ignition interlocks has focused on the repeat offenders, since laws requiring interlock were only in place for that population. And consistently, those studies showed that two years post interlock, recidivism rates were the same for those who had interlock as those who did not. No discernible change in behavior.
The IIHS research is noteworthy. While interlocks may not make a long term impact for repeat, hardcore offenders—75% of whom are assessed as alcohol dependent—the population of first-time DUI offenders is predominantly those who inadvertently drove above .08 BAC, and were unaware of their level of intoxication. A year of interlock clearly has a strong propensity to reduce repeat offenses by teaching these non-dependent individuals how much alcohol consumption it takes to get to a .08 BAC and what that level of impairment feels like.
Opponents such as the American Beverage Institute have come out against this type of legislation, calling this type of law a broad brush that punishes those “a sip” above the legal limit, or who do not have alcohol abuse issues. “We believe that judges should be able to distinguish between someone who is one sip over the limit and someone has had nine drinks prior to driving. There should not be a one-size-fits-all penalty for DUI offenders,” said Sarah Longwell, managing director of the ABI, a restaurant trade association group. Clearly the IIHS study disputes ABI’s position.
While only 34% of those required to install interlocks during the time of the IIHS study actually did so, and lawmakers are beginning to work to close the loopholes that allow these offenders to dodge the requirement. Clearly the effort will be well placed, as first-time interlock laws, when enforced, are Making a Difference. And that makes this IIHS study one of our Top 12 Newsmakers for 2012.
