Citation

Beirness DJ, Marques PR, Voas RB, Tippetts AS. Traffic Injury Prev. 2003; 4(3): 195-198.

Affiliation

Traffic Injury Research Foundation, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. dougb@trafficinjuryresearch.com

Copyright

(Copyright © 2003, Informa - Taylor and Francis Group)

DOI

10.1080/15389580309876

PMID

14522643

Abstract

Research has demonstrated that participation in an interlock program significantly reduces the likelihood of subsequent driving while intoxicated (DWI) convictions at least so long as the interlock device is installed in the vehicle. Despite the growing number of jurisdictions that allow interlock programs and the demonstrated success of these programs, the proportion of DWI offenders who actually have the device installed is minimal. In an effort to increase the proportion of offenders using interlocks, some jurisdictions require offenders to install an interlock as a condition of license reinstatement whereas others merely offer offenders a reduction in the period of hard suspension if they voluntarily participate in an interlock program. The objective of the present study was to determine the extent to which voluntary interlock participants are more or less successful in terms of subsequent recidivism than those for whom interlock program participation has been mandated. The issue was addressed using data from the interlock program in Alberta, Canada, which provides for both mandatory and voluntary participation. The recidivism experience of voluntary and mandatory interlock participants was examined both during and after the period of interlock installation. Cox regression revealed that, after controlling for (or equating) the number of prior DWI offenses, the survival rates of DWI offenders who were ordered to participate in the interlock program did not differ from those of voluntary participants. These results suggest that further use of mandatory interlock programs should be just as successful as voluntary programs when offenders share characteristics with those studied in Alberta.