Citation

Raub RA, Lucke RE, Wark RI. Traffic Injury Prev. 2003; 4(Suppl 1): 28-34.

Affiliation

Northwestern University Center for Public Safety, Evanston, Illinois, USA.

Copyright

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

DOI

10.1080/1538-950391915786

PMID

16801127

Abstract

This study compares the recidivism rates of two groups of Illinois drivers who had their driver's licenses revoked for alcohol-impaired driving and who received restricted driving permits. Drivers in both groups had more than two driving under the influence (DUI) actions against their record within 5 years or were classed as level III alcohol dependents. Drivers in one group were required to install breath alcohol ignition interlock devices in their vehicles and drivers in the other group were not. The research found that drivers with the interlock were one-fifth as likely to be arrested for DUI during the 1 year the device was installed as the comparison group, which did not have the device. However, once the ignition interlock was removed, drivers in this group rapidly returned to DUI arrest rates similar to those in the comparison group. These findings echo previous literature. Additionally, the study showed that this voluntary program in Illinois reached only 16% of the drivers who met the requirements for installing the interlock device. Finally, this study found that individuals who were removed from the interlock program and returned to revoked status continued to drive. Within 3 years, approximately 50% of this latter group were involved in a crash or were arrested for DUI or with an invalid driver's license. Conclusions drawn from the study suggest that the breath alcohol ignition interlock device is effective in preventing continued driving while impaired. However, the large-scale effectiveness of the device is limited since most of the drivers eligible for the device do not have it installed. To have a significant impact, the interlock device must represent a better alternative to drivers whose licenses were suspended or revoked because of alcohol arrests compared to remaining on revoked status without having the device installed. Finally the research suggests that, given the rapid return to predevice recidivism, the devices should remain installed until drivers can demonstrate an extended period of being alcohol free.

Language: en