Commentary by

Barry M. Sweedler, President
International Council on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety

3rd Annual Ignition Interlock Symposium
October 29, 2002
Vero Beach, Florida

I have listened to today's presentations and discussion and would like to offer some observations and commentary concerning the future of the use of alcohol ignition interlocks.

While great progress has been made in the past two decades in reducing impaired driving throughout the industrialized world, in the United States that progress has slowed and in the past few years we have even seen increases in alcohol-related crash deaths. Obviously, business as usual will not get us back on the track toward further reductions. We must use proven countermeasures more broadly and more vigorously. One of those countermeasures that could be greatly expanded is the use of alcohol ignition interlocks. This strategy poses significant challenges, but there are signs that a major expansion is possible.

Research has shown us that interlock systems are very effective in reducing the incidence of drinking and driving, but only when they are installed on offenders' vehicles. We also know that interlocks are not frequently used. Dr. Voas has reported that there were 1,500,000 DWI arrests in the United States last year, but interlocks were installed on the cars of only 60,000 drivers. It is encouraging to see that the use of interlock systems is beginning to increase around the world. Programs are now in use and expanding in Canada, Australia and in Sweden.

The challenge that we face is how to get interlock systems on the cars of many more offenders. We need to make it much easier to get offenders on interlock systems and much harder to get the systems removed from their vehicles. States need to develop practices and systems that provide for the mandatory use of interlock systems. It should not up to the offender to make the decision whether or not to sign up for the interlock program.

Often, interlocks are offered as a way of shortening the time of license suspension. Since most drivers who lose their licenses continue to drive, however, there is little incentive for drivers to put up with the interlock as a way of getting their licenses reinstated. I believe a combination of incentives and disincentives will have a major impact. Some changes to existing systems could help maximize participation in interlock programs. An important first step is to make driving while suspended for DWI a very serious offense. Currently, in many states, the chances of being caught driving while suspended are small and the possible consequences minimal. Vehicle confiscation and jail time should be seriously considered. In that situation, drivers would be much more willing to participate in an interlock program in order to reinstate the license.

Another possible incentive would be if the insurance industry would offer a discount to drivers who agree to have an interlock system installed on their vehicles. The discount should at least cover the cost of maintaining the interlock system. The discounts could even continue even after the prescribed interlock period, if the driver agreed to keep the system on his vehicle. I note that we have no insurance industry representation at this symposium, even though they were invited to attend. I will attempt to bring together representatives from the insurance industry and the interlock industry to open a dialogue on this issue.

Since it has frequently been shown that interlocks are only effective while the device is on the vehicle, in order to maximize the effectiveness of interlock programs, the time period an offender is required to be on the interlock system should not be fixed. The driver should be required to show by his performance that he is ready to have the system removed.

In order to minimize the expense and difficulty of installing interlock devices, vehicle manufacturers should begin to develop pre-wired ignition interlock systems for new vehicles. Volvo is moving in that direction for the commercial vehicles it produces. The system will be made available, as an option, on new commercial vehicles. This action was taken in response to Swedish commercial vehicle operators, who are voluntarily installing interlock systems on their vehicles as a safety device. Some Swedish government agencies are also requiring interlock systems on vehicles of contracting companies. Other groups of non-offenders might be interested in such an option, including parents of teenagers.

As we have heard at this symposium and in other venues over many years, interlock programs can work to reduce recidivism and increase safety. And yet they continue to be underutilized. We need to look more creatively at how to change the system of incentives and disincentives that currently exists to make sure that we all benefit from the protection that interlocks offer.