ELIMINATE
DRUNK-DRIVING
A solution to
eliminate AlcoholImpaired Driving
VERNARD WILSON
SAE PUBLIC POLICY INTERN
0
Table of Contents
About the W.I.S.E. Program: ……………1
About SAE: ……………1
About the Author: …………...1
Acknowledgement: …………..1
Glossary……………
Executive Summary: ……………1
1.0 Introduction: ……………3
The Deterring Factor Current law and
legislation……………4
Federal Government Approach……………5
State Government Approach……………6
The Current Solution Use It To Improve……………7
Sobriety Check Points……………8
Ignition Interlock Systems……………14
What Have We Have We Learned From The Current
System……………18
The Prevention- A New Standard……………19
"The Technology"……………20
Appendix A: State Drunk Driving Laws……………21
Bibliography ……………39-44.
DIGEST OF IMPAIRED DRIVING LAWS, 25TH EDITION
1
About the WISE Program:
The Washington Internships for Students of Engineering (WISE) program
works to bridge the gap between engineering professionals and policy makers by
introducing engineering students to Washington, D.C. The students are sponsored
by an engineering society that involves a competitive selection process. The
engineer’s task is to conduct policy research and provide a technical solution for a
potential political concern or problem. The interns are given the opportunity to meet
with influential figures in Congress, committees, industry, and non-governmental
organizations in order to thoroughly gain an understanding of the policy making
process, and to research their selected topics. The product of the student’s work is a
policy paper which is published in the Journal of Engineering and Public Policy.
About SAE:
SAE International is a global association of more than 138,000 engineers and
related technical experts in the aerospace, automotive and commercial-vehicle
industries. SAE International's core competencies are life-long learning and
voluntary consensus standards development. SAE International's charitable arm is
the SAE Foundation, which supports many programs, including A World In Motion®
and the Collegiate Design Series.
About the Author:
Vernard Wilson is a Detroit, Michigan native, studying Software Engineering as an
undergraduate at Wayne State University. Vernard conducts research at Wayne
State University doing Monte Carlo Simulations on high speed GPU’s (Graphical
Processor Units). Upon completing the WISE program, he has achieved valuable
knowledge that will considerably impact direction for my career. He will continue to
do research after the completion of his undergraduate degree.
Acknowledgements:
I would like to thank SAE for granting me this opportunity to intern for the WISE
program. I would also like to thank Bruce Mahone, Director of Operations,
Washington, D.C. for recognizing my potential in succeeding in this program. I will
also like to acknowledge and thank my mentor, Logan Johnson, staff engineer
Washington D.C SAE, for making the understanding of the WISE program and the
operation of SAE understandable; I would have not succeeded without his input. Dr.
Kenneth Lutz for his political expertise and guidance in the WISE program. My
fellow WISE intern’s from IEEE, ASHRAE, ASME for motivation and wisdom.
DIGEST OF IMPAIRED DRIVING LAWS, 25TH EDITION
2
Erica Wossolik, Mark Ames, and Melissa Carl forming the framework, and
supplying supplemental comfort in learning Washington, D.C and of the WISE
program. Lastly, I would like to thank my family, Lee Carter, Dee Carter, Brittany
Wilson, Vivian Wilson, I would have not been here without them; thank you.
DIGEST OF IMPAIRED DRIVING LAWS, 25TH EDITION
3
E LIMINATE D RUNK -D RIVING
A solution to eliminate Alcohol-Impaired Driving
T
Executive Summary
he most recent data discloses that the total economic cost of motor vehicle
crashes in the United States was $242 billion, 37 billion of which involves
alcohol impaired drivers, $784 for each of the 308.7 million people living in
the United States, and 1.6 percent of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (1). Vehicle
crashes in which alcohol was the cause resulted in 11,226 fatalities, 326,000
nonfatal injuries, and $43.2 billion in economic costs. This is approximately 84
percent of the alcohol-related fatalities and 82 percent of alcohol-related economic
costs. It represents 34 percent of all fatalities and 18 percent of all costs from motor
vehicle crashes (32). When the quality-of-life valuations are considered, such as
property damage, medical expenses, and loss wages from employment, the total
value of societal harm from motor vehicle crashes in 2010 was $836 billion (29). As a
tax-payer, $784 appears considerably small, but at the expense of someone’s life due
to irresponsible actions caused by drinking and driving, the cost is substantial.
Considering these statistics, why are the results for solving the issue of drunk
driving unimproved? Why is the cost related to drunk driving accidents so
overwhelming? What are the governmental approaches to this problem? Are they
effective? Undoubtedly not for the present or remote future. The laws and sanctions
that exist on all levels of government has been in practice for over 20 years with
minimal impact. Why? Because the government laws implemented are designed to
deter drunk driving, not prevent it. When considering deterrence in any situation
that can be imagined, the action that is causing hindrance is usually suppressed
marginally. Eventually, that action being suppressed is then circumvented,
resulting in a more robust approach to the action using deterring factors.
Systematically, this is the government’s approach to drunk driving; a list of specific
laws that essentially deter the drunk driver. Not only does the analogy presented
illustrate the government’s approach to drunk driving, but it also depict the longterm results of this approach. Like any situation that cause hindrance, and
deterring factors are implemented, there will be initial declination, however there
will eventually be plateauing of the results as illustrated in the statistical data.
At the federal level, in order for states to receive supplement grants or federal-aid
for their highways, it is required that all states implement prevention programs for
drunk driving. These prevention programs are framed by 3 federal laws- sobriety
check points, distribution of alcohol to a minor under the age of 21, and ignition
interlock programs. At the state level, Sobriety check points or some form of them,
ignition interlock programs, and the enforcement of under aged drinking has been
enforced sanctions to prevent drunk driving for the last 2 decades. Why does drunk
driving still have a large impact on economic cost? The laws are essentially
DIGEST OF IMPAIRED DRIVING LAWS, 25TH EDITION
4
deterrent factors, rather than a prevention; a solution. Much like being a dog owner,
you will attempt to teach your pet not to make a mess of the trash, however your pet
will find ways to get into your trash, leaving a mess, costing you more money in
cleaning supplies. People will drink; people will drive; people will drink and drive
concurrently, which can potentially result in an injury, death, or cost related factors.
To counter-act drunk driving, states essentially has adopted laws that will deter
these actions, but are they suffice enough to prevent the problem? With deterrence,
there will always be existence for an issue. In some cases, these issues can be costly,
and the deterring factors that are implemented are not enough to solve the issue.
The state and federal laws entail insufficient methods to counter-act the problem of
drunk driving. Rather than implementing programs that generally deter drinking
and driving, the solution is to not apply more deterring factors, or re-establish law,
and establish more deterring laws. The solution or prevention is to institute a
vehicle safety standard that will essentially mandate the installment of an
embedded system that non-intrusively reads BAC’s (Blood Alcohol Level) into all
vehicles that will prevent the act of drinking and driving.
Introduction
Alcohol-impaired motor vehicle crashes cost more than an estimated $37 billion
annually (6). Crashes in which alcohol was the cause resulted in 11,226 fatalities,
326,000 nonfatal injuries. This is approximately 84 percent of the alcohol-related
fatalities and 82 percent of alcohol-related economic costs. It represents 34 percent
of all fatalities and 18 percent of all costs from motor vehicle crashes. As a result,
alcohol-related crashes account for $43.2 billion in economic costs (6). The cost
components include productivity losses, property damage, medical costs,
rehabilitation costs, congestion costs, legal and court costs, and emergency services.
When all of these valuations are considered, the estimated economic cost is $836
Billion annually (21)(14). Blood tests performed on fatally injured drivers in the
United States indicate that 60 to 75 per cent of them have blood alcohol
DIGEST OF IMPAIRED DRIVING LAWS, 25TH EDITION
5
concentrations of 0.05 per cent or more; and that 40 to 50 per cent of fatally injured
drivers attain concentrations of 0.15 per cent or more (36)(21). A statistic that
relates to auto insurance will put this in more of a perspective. Alcohol-related
crashes accounted for an estimated 18% of the $103 billion in U.S. auto insurance
payments. Reducing alcohol-related crashes by 10% would save $1.8 billion in claims
payments and loss adjustment expenses (3). Not only does this statistic suggest
direct impact on the rise of your auto-insurance, but this illustrates that all the cost
components that must be accounted for will impact motorist’s directly, even if you
are not involved in a drunk driving incident. Over the course of approximately 10
years, there has been minimal change in fatality rates, injury rates, and cost caused
by drunk driving. An example will be the difference in fatality rates, which can be
paralleled to cost influence by drunk driving.
But are the preemptive approaches established by law to eradicate drunk driving
sufficient? The recent statistics will suggest that the current laws in place are not
sufficient and as a result, there is an economic impact that represents 2% of the
Gross Domestic Product. Instead of implementing prevention programs and
sanctions that essentially deter drinking and driving, why not implement a selfsustaining mechanism that will prevent the act of drinking and driving? Why not
elimination? Institute a regulatory safety standard to mandate that all vehicles shall
be equipped with an embedded system that will prevent the act of drinking and
driving; the prevention of needless death, injury, and cost would be universally
desired. Why enforce current sanctions and laws to curtail drunk driving when there
is minimal progress? The answers to these questions start, but do not end with the
current laws that are not enforced by the federal and state government.
According to the recent data, it suggests that the current laws established are
inadequate, and that the impact of the current approach is no longer sufficient.
Were they ever sufficient? The data would strongly suggest that there is a negligible
decrease over the recent ten-year period. Since the Drunk Driving Prevention Act
established in 1983, each year, the federal government has enforced stronger
preemptive sanctions among state’s to counter-act drunk driving. With these
sanctions, state’s government has established laws and preemptive measures to
combat drunk driving. Despite the implementation of laws such as the sobriety
check points, and the ignition interlock programs, a solution or preemptive factor is
yet to be attained. Moreover, with the laws the sanctions and laws that exist, would
suggest minimum change, and that the deterring approach is not the path to a
solution.
DIGEST OF IMPAIRED DRIVING LAWS, 25TH EDITION
6
The Deterring Factor:
Current Law and Legislation
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Depicting current facets of federal and state laws, will disclose the level of
complication to implement a standard that would mandate the use of the technology
suggested into all motorized vehicles. In 1983, the federal government adopted the
Drunk Driving Prevention Act, which prohibits the Secretary of Transportation, who
is part of the executive branch of government, to withhold federal funding for
highways from states if they fail to conform to the National
Drunk Driving Prevention Program. In efforts to prevent drunk driving, there are
sanctions enforced to combat drunk driving, and essentially, these sanctions are the
ground work to deterring the act of drinking and driving; there are of the following(1) a blood alcohol content standard; (2) suspension of a license for conviction
of drunk driving; (3) imprisonment for conviction of drunk driving; (4) penalties
for driving with a suspended or revoked license; (5) informational programs; (6)
rehabilitation and treatment programs; (7) a minimum drinking age of 21 years; and
(8) a sale-of-liquor-to-minors enforcement program(21).
In forming these sanctions, there came more detailed and robust specifics applied to
the National Drunk Driving Prevention Program. Eventually, a percentage of
federal-aid for highways among states were being held if states did not adopt the
BAC (blood alcohol level) being set at a threshold of 0.08 percent or greater. In
enforcing the BAC threshold, law enforcement must enforce mandatory testing for
intoxication if in any event of a vehicular accident that resulted in injury, property
damage, or death. In addition, license revocation paired with ignition interlock
system programs were also sanctioned to help eradicate drunk driving. Enforcing
an effective system for preventing drivers under the age of 21 were also sanctions
deter drunk drivers. For states to enforce such programs requires an abundance of
work. Essentially, the federal government is requiring states to adopt these
sanctions as legislation to reduce the impacts of drunk driving. This can be
illustrated as a parent giving their daughter a treat if they complete their homework
for week. The conformity is the federal government withholding federal-aid for
highways, the parent that possesses the money, and the states legislating these
sanctions, the daughter doing homework, to reduce drunk driving. I would agree to
establish a legal threshold as a preemptive measure to reduce drunk driving,
however, does establishing laws to stop under aged drinking, and rehabilitation and
treatment programs prevent drunk driving? Can you imagine being a person under
the age 21 circumventing the law against under aged drinking? This would pose as a
deterrent, rather than preemptive factor.
DIGEST OF IMPAIRED DRIVING LAWS, 25TH EDITION
7
STATE GOVERNMENT
All 50 states and the District of Columbia have laws which make it illegal to drive
with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08 grams per deciliter (g/dL) or higher
(NHTSA 2009b) (refer to appendix A for state by state enforcement)(17). By law,
drivers are driving impaired when their BAC reaches this 0.08 threshold.
Considering the context of laws that can be enforced on the federal level, for the
issue of drunk driving, federal mandates that prohibit the specific elements that is
the cause of the problem is sufficient. An example is the allowable blood alcohol
content level when operating a motor vehicle is 0.08, which all states are also
pressured to adopt. It is up to the state’s to structure these laws for effectiveness
and efficiency. In considering the state’s structuring of the laws enforced, all states
have their own structured approach in applying the laws against drunk driving. An
example will be of the sobriety check points. All states do not enforce sobriety check
points, however they may enforce their own “check point” that may not conform
specifically to the typical sobriety check point zone. Another may be of the
enforcement of the ignition interlock system program. Depending on the level of
conviction as it relates to BAC upon the accident and whether it is a first time
offense, will determine if the offender must go through the ignition interlock
program. When considering the enforcement of these laws, it is helpful to imagine a
dog owner attempting to prevent his or her dog from escaping a fenced backyard.
The laws in place can be viewed as the deterring factor and the state government as
the dog owner. In efforts to deter the dog from escaping the fenced backyard, a lock
may be placed on the fence. Consequently, the dog manages to escape the fenced
backyard even after placing the lock on the gate of the fenced backyard resulting in
money spent to go look for the dog around the neighborhood or perhaps expending
money for a search team to help find the dog. This analogy can be accorded with the
state and federal government’s approach to reduce drunk driving; these are
deterring factors, not preventive measures.
In any case, there exist legislation for drunk driving, and the laws that do exist,
vary from state to state. To outset the issue of drunk driving, and administer a
prospective of the calamity that it offers, it will be instructive to provide some facts
on the laws that exist from state to state.
DIGEST OF IMPAIRED DRIVING LAWS, 25TH EDITION
8
Sobriety check points
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of sobriety checkpoints in
1990. If conducted properly, sobriety checkpoints do not constitute illegal search and
seizure in most states. The U.S. Supreme Court decision held that the interest in
reducing alcohol-impaired driving was sufficient to justify the brief intrusion of a
properly conducted sobriety checkpoint.
Sobriety checkpoints are a technique where law enforcement officials evaluate
drivers for signs of alcohol or drug impairment at specific points on the roadway
(38). Police in most states occasionally set up DUI checkpoints (also called sobriety
checkpoints or roadside safety checks), generally spread over a larger geographic
area, to check for drunk or otherwise impaired motorists. This behavior of motorists
may consist of observing moving violations such as reckless driving, speeding and
aggressive driving among other things (38)(14). Typically, police set up these
checkpoints along busy highways during holidays that are notorious for alcohol
abuse, such as 4th of July and Memorial Day. Checkpoints usually consist of
roadblocks along intersections, where officers stop random vehicles at regular
intervals (such as every tenth driver) and check for signs of intoxications(findlaw.com) The process is usually conducted, initially by publicizing in advance, and
signs are posted at the approaches to the checkpoints, warning drivers that a
checkpoint is ahead (38)(14). Next, if the checkpoints are conducted properly, cars
are pulled over at random according to their order in the sequence which diminishes
the possibility of racial profiling (38). If the persons being pulled-over prove to be
law-abiding citizens, they are free to go within minutes (38).
DIGEST OF IMPAIRED DRIVING LAWS, 25TH EDITION
9
Detecting drunk driving is not as easy as it might seem, and is not necessarily the
most efficient method of detecting and apprehending drunk drivers. Again, sobriety
checkpoints are designed to deter drunk drivers, and they can be labor intensive
with limited proximity(14). An example would be that state budget cuts or resource
availability limits traffic safety funding choices. Another is insufficient resources
that are available to routinely use task forces such as sobriety check point
operations. In a lot of cases, they are too few personnel to staff a full-scale
checkpoint, resulting in only conducting a small-scale sobriety checkpoint. Those
without specialized training in detecting alcohol impairment—even medical
professionals—are notoriously poor at estimating alcohol impairment. For police,
detecting drunk driving typically requires two separate judgments: first, that a
vehicle is being operated by an impaired driver; and second, that the driver is
impaired by alcohol or another controlled substance. Each judgment is in turn
subject to two kinds of errors: first, that the driver is impaired by alcohol when in
fact he is not (false positive); and second, the driver is not impaired by alcohol when
in fact he is (false negative). (4)(6). There are two ways in which the field officer
conducts a positive detection of alcohol: 1. The Standardized Field Sobriety Test
(SFST) appears to be the most accurate of the tools that have been developed to
assist police in recognizing indications of alcohol impairment. Endorsed by the U.S.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (1), the SFST includes a horizontal
gaze nystagmus test, a walk-and-turn test, and a one-leg stand test. Afterward, a
combination of tests is usually called for, because some drinkers, particularly serious
alcoholics, can perform certain tasks even while profoundly impaired (Drunk
Driving); and 2. Preliminary breath testing devices (PBT) are typically small and
easy to operate. Some devices are passive sensors that can detect the presence of
alcohol from within a few inches of a driver’s face. Note that these passive alcohol
sensors, when it records alcohol, the results are only approximate; that is, the device
provides information on the presence, not the amount of alcohol detected. Passive
devices ordinarily do not require an officer to meet any evidentiary standard over
DIGEST OF IMPAIRED DRIVING LAWS, 25TH EDITION
10
and above the one required to stop the vehicle in the first instance. Other devices,
which require a driver to blow into a tube or other aperture, ordinarily do require
that the officer first have reason to believe that the driver has been drinking (4).
Sobriety Check Points can be found effective, however, every region throughout a
state cannot be patrolled using Sobriety Field Test. Even if law enforcement are
conducting SCP’s at peak times or during “bar” hours. There is simply too much
human behavior to be effectively watched. Millions of drinking drivers on thousands
of miles of highway night and day around the clock. (5). Because of all the factors
that involves these types of field test, and the possibility of error that does and can
occur, suggest plateauing, regression, and limited effects. Sobriety check points do
not demand extensive funding, and do not extend beyond normal salary and benefits
associated with daily law enforcement operations, however, they do require effort of
law enforcement that is not always disposable. In fact, there are a lot of cases where
State police were not available to support alcohol-impaired driving programs due to
competing priorities. A high concentration of rural roads or out-of-state drivers
made it harder to enforce impaired driving laws. Simple flaws may have applied
like evidentiary requirements of alcohol-impaired driving arrests tied up police
DIGEST OF IMPAIRED DRIVING LAWS, 25TH EDITION
11
Officers during high-risk impaired driving periods, causing less patrol officers to
conduct the check point effectively and efficiently. Five arrest could be made while
administering the field test, dismissing law enforcement from the field test. This
reduce the length of the field test or forcing the operation to be shut down
completely. There are not many circumventing factors that also play a part in
Sobriety field test unless the proximity to which the field being patrolled has an
alternative route to avoid the field test. But let’s not completely disregard the idea of
sobriety check points. Alike the perceptions that can become of Ignition interlock
systems with the technological idea proposed, perhaps sobriety check points is a precursor to the technological idea that can eliminate drunk driving; perhaps it is the
drive of a lot of initial questions one may have in concern with the technology. Is it
intrusion on one’s privacy rights? Is it Constitutional? The whole idea that deems
Sobriety check points Constitutional, for most states, is that it is forewarned that a
person is entering a zone where a person is subject to a search of alcohol
intoxication. Connecting this idea with the technology suggested, should this
technology be passed as constitutional? Does this not deem the violation of
someone’s privacy rights? Of course it does. A person could be entirely oblivious to
the fact that such technology exist in his or her vehicle. A technology that is passive
to where you are notified only when the problem occurs; that is when you test
positive of alcohol content that exceed the legal threshold. How many technological
features is your vehicle equipped with that you are completely unaware of? Which do
you use without even knowing that you are utilizing the software? There are sensory
systems in all vehicles that monitor the driver to ensure safety. Whether it is the
auto-windshield wiper in preparation for inclement weather conditions, or
prompting the driver to employ the safety belt. The technology proposed will ensure
the same attributes. Nevertheless, this sort of technology will not breach anyone’s
privacy rights. Essentially, debunking this argument with privacy law factors is
impractical, notably considering sobriety check points and the law that exist. The
U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1990 that sobriety checkpoints are legal under federal
law in respect to the case Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, leaving it up to the
individual states to decide (). For which DUI check-points do not exist in all states,
however it does in most states. In fact, 38 states, the District of Columbia, the
Northern Mariana Islands and the Virgin Islands conduct sobriety checkpoints, but
for the rest of the states, there exist several reasons as to why they do not
(GHSA)(find-law.com). Primarily, because they are either considered illegal by law
or state constitution, or the state lacks authority to conduct them (find-law.com).
The eleven states to which Sobriety Check points are not performed in the United
States are of following: Alaska, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode
Island, Texas, which does not conduct DUI checkpoints in the view of its
interpretation of the U.S Constitution, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming, and one
unique case, Montana (find-law.com). Although Montana statute allows so-called
"safety spot-checks" by law enforcement, the code does not specifically refer to
sobriety checkpoints, nevertheless they will conduct similar actions in the state.
With these facts relayed, it would not be unrealistic to think that all states would
not support this technology or debunk the idea as unconstitutional. Most recent
DIGEST OF IMPAIRED DRIVING LAWS, 25TH EDITION
12
data projects that 72.8% of Americans support the use of sobriety checkpoints in
their community multiple times per month. Only 8.9% of respondents did not
support the use of sobriety checkpoints. Even a majority (57%) of drivers who selfreported driving after drinking in the past month supported sobriety checkpoints
(AAA Foundation). Furthermore, alleviating the Sobriety check point operation can
shift focus onto other law-enforced operations such as theft and sexual assault. This
will help pose efficiency in law enforcement, resulting in heightened enforcement for
other areas of need.
FIGURE 1
DIGEST OF IMPAIRED DRIVING LAWS, 25TH EDITION
13
Ignition interlocks have been used to prevent impaired driving in the United States
for more than 20 years and have become a widely accepted countermeasure for
alcohol-impaired driving. They are adequately effective in deterring and preventing
drinking and driving. An device installed on a motor vehicle that requires a breath
sample to determine the driver’s breathe alcohol concentration (BAC) before the
vehicle can start. It does so by requiring that the host driver provide a breath
sample by breathing into a sensor that is connected to the vehicle’s ignition module;
the limit is usually set at a threshold of 0.20dc/l. Once the breath sample is read for
alcoholic content, and being that it is under the legal threshold or under the
programmed set point, it will determine whether the driver can start the vehicle.
Today’s ignition interlocks are programmed to accomplish four tasks: 1. A breath
alcohol sensor installed in the passenger compartment of a vehicle connected to a
control unit in the engine compartment that allows the engine to start only upon an
acceptable breath test; 2. A tamper-proof system for mounting the control unit in the
engine compartment; 3. A data-recording system that logs breath test results, tests
compliance, and other data required by a state; and 4. A retest system which, after
the engine has started, requires the driver to provide another breath sample to
ensure that the driver remains alcohol-free at varying intervals (such as every 10 to
15 minutes). And of course, it is strongly recommend a drivers not perform the retest while the vehicle is in motion, but rather exit traffic and comply with the test.
DIGEST OF IMPAIRED DRIVING LAWS, 25TH EDITION
14
The required installation of an ignition interlock system also is accompanied by
other disciplines that are all part of a program; there are 3 programs that exist for
interlock system programs: 1. The administrative program, where an agency
requires the installation of interlock device, 2. The Judicial program, the courts
mandate the device to be installed, whether pre or post trial, 3: The Hybrid
Program, in which the state may administer either or both administrative or judicial
program.
Ignition interlock systems shows that while in use, reduce recidivism among
convicted drivers by a range of 50 to 90%. They reduce the economic impact of
drunk driving by $3-7 for every $1 spent. The most recent data depicted by NHTSA
on recidivism with interlock systems is when comparing only the period when
interlocks were installed on their vehicle, the high BAC first offender re-arrest rates
were 61% lower than those ignition interlock institutes without interlocks; once the
interlocks were removed, there was still an 18% lower recidivism rate for the
interlock group(5). Although ignition interlock devices prove to be substantially
effective, there are only effective when installed, which is after the drunk driving
offense. It has been found that once the ignition interlocks are removed from the
vehicle, the risk of recidivism goes back to the same level as that of offenders who
have not participated in interlock programs (39). Another problem, alike the sobriety
check point zone, require the reliance on law enforce them; that is interlock systems
are a part of programs that must be court ordered or state administered. Although
all states adopt interlock programs, they do not choose to enforce the ignition
interlock program in every case. Many State statutes contain exemptions that
hamper the State’s ability to fully address and implement ignition interlock
programs. This insinuates absenteeism, suggesting that these devices are intended
to be put in practice more often than not and inconsistency in enforcing the law.
There is also need for improved interface between courts and administrative
systems. Judges and prosecutors often rely solely on the administrative program,
which can contribute to a lower usage rate. Additionally, every state has its own set
of laws when it comes to enforcing these programs. An example will be of the state
of North Carolina, in which a conviction of a BAC of 0.15 or an offense of consecutive
DUI’s within a 7 year time frame, will require an interlock device to be installed into
the offender’s vehicle. As opposed to Washington D.C, to where 1st time offenders
are required to installed the device for one year (6). There also exist loop-holes and
challenges for these interlock system programs. Some of the challenges consist of
funding and program costs, which can be acknowledged considering counseling and
court hearing, workload activities and monitoring of the program or the offenders
progress throughout the program, and offenders exiting the interlock program.
Offenders that exit for non-compliance, when non-compliance should lead to
extension within the program or other more severe sanctions. These challenges also
apply to state barriers which, many State statutes contain exemptions that hamper
the State’s ability to fully address and implement ignition interlock programs;
contradiction of the law essentially. Some loop-holes are, as it pertains to individual
offenders, is waiting out revocation periods, driving while revoked, and driving a
non-interlocked vehicle, and interlock requirements can be bargained away in return
DIGEST OF IMPAIRED DRIVING LAWS, 25TH EDITION
15
for a plea are some examples. In many cases with families that may own 2 vehicles,
the offender will drive the vehicle that does not have the device installed in it,
circumventing the interlock system program. Mildly sophisticated, however,
circumvention is effortless. Also with the reliance on law and agencies to enforce
these programs, tend to fall short in consistently abiding by the law to enforce
interlock programs. There exist too much reliance on the people, agencies, and
government to regulate the approach of the interlock program. The idea of using a
technological device is sufficient, however, implementing such a device after the
crime is not. In addition, the more the interlock program is expanded or the more
sanctions placed on the matter just complicates and add more cost to rectifying the
problem.
Convincingly, from a technological prospective, the statistics of the effects of
interlock systems offers some advantages that should not go without being noticed.
It is considerably cost effective, and when executed correctly, deem to be effective.
Coextending, this technological prospective supports the idea of implementing
technology into vehicles to eliminate drunk driving subsequent to conviction.
Identical to sobriety field test, ignition interlock systems are design to deter the
offender from repeating the offense after the completion of the program. This does
not implicate a solution to drunk driving. In collaborating the idea of sobriety field
test and ignition interlock systems, equates to punishment and deterrence.
Conceptualizing a predicament where there is deterrence for actions committed. For
example, imagine being a manager. How repetitive is the process of training
employees on rules and etiquette of the company? Essentially, there is a system that
will deter the employees from committing an act that is against the rules of the
company, which in turn, can place financial burden on the company. The actual
rules or deterrents that can lead to suspension, probation, or separation entirely,
can be viewed as breaking the law. Parallel to this would essentially mean a person
causing an accident while intoxicated or getting caught intoxicated passing through
a sobriety check point. This system operates on a continuum for any employee that
is hired, deterring the same repetitive action of all employees. If the violations
become costly, this would result in more stringent sanctions, or disciplines.
Essentially, this same idea applies to the way government attempt to reduce or
eliminate drunk driving. People will drink; people will drive; people will drink and
drive. But much like the company analogy, there are deterring factors that never
prevent the issue, rather, open opportunity for circumvention; the same exist for the
issue of drinking and driving. Notwithstanding, what is the answer for your dog not
to jump over the fence? Stop him from running away from home? Build a fence he
cannot jump; a prevention; a single solution; a single cost. No monitoring expending
energy, no cost in gas going to look for the dog. A single solution that prohibits cost
and energy expended. The law that prohibits under aged drinking; another
deterrent for the youth community. But is this not a problem that exist among
society, regardless of age; regardless of the probability of adults drinking and driving
versus youths? More laws and sanctions will only deter the issue of drunk driving
not prevent drunk driving.
DIGEST OF IMPAIRED DRIVING LAWS, 25TH EDITION
16
In the case of drunk driving, the state laws and sanctions that are implanted are
insufficient to the issue of drunk driving. Moreover, in regards to vehicle safety,
there does not exist a vehicle safety standard that is prohibitive towards drunk
driving; big problem. Why does the federal government provide incentivizes to state
governments if insufficient progress is made on the issue of drunk driving?
Considering the statistics, the laws and sanctions enforced by state governments are
insufficient and are not properly enforced. Sobriety checkpoints, ignition interlock
systems, and under-age drinking do not deem viable as a long term solution to the
issue of drunk driving. When a large disposal of money is being spent for limited
results over a substantial amount of time, a significant problem exist. To avoid a
top-down approach that already exist, implement a vehicle safety standard that all
vehicles be equipped with an embedded software that will prevent drunk driving.
The Current solution:
Use it to improve
For counter-measures, 50 states and District of Columbia, have adopted preemptive
sanctions, which deter offenders. Sobriety check points can be viewed as intrusive
and constitutionally illegal. This prohibits police from conducting sobriety-check
points due to legal restrictions. In addition, in many states, organizational conflicts
or the political climate limited program implementation; or simply state and local
police forces were understaffed. Ignition interlock systems has had some success in
deterring repeat offenders from drinking and driving. Summarily to the sobriety
check point system, ignition interlock systems are limited, and pose complications of
their own. An example will be that offenders can circumvent an interlock sanction
simply by driving another vehicle not equipped with an interlock device. Interlock
systems are not enforced until a person is convicted of a DUI, resulting in a BAC
(blood alcohol concentration) over the legal limit. However, the key is to prevent the
action in its entirety, not to prevent the action once the drunk driving crime has
been performed. The technology is a fairly good idea and has had success in
preventing drinking and driving when enforced and the device is physically in an
offender’s vehicle. Studies consistently demonstrate that interlocks reduce
recidivism while the device is installed in an offender’s vehicle. The research also
indicates that once the device is removed, recidivism rates increase to levels
comparable to those offenders who were not required to have an interlock installed
as part of their sanction. The positive view of Ignition interlock systems is that they
reduce the cost components that accompany drunk driving significantly. The medical
expenses, fire, police, and others are all accounted for due to the prevention of the
act of drinking and driving.
DIGEST OF IMPAIRED DRIVING LAWS, 25TH EDITION
17
Interestingly enough, as it relates to general patrol of the police, legal control of
drunk driving is also limited by the enforcement techniques that are employed. In
the United States, a driver generally may not be stopped and asked to submit to a
chemical test of intoxication unless observably deviant driving behavior such as
speeding, weaving, or lane changing provides probable cause for an arrest. This
tactic can be rather challenging when considering all the error that can potentially
take place.
WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM THE
CURRENT SYSTEM?
In the case of ignition interlock systems, they prove to be impressive in many ways,
however, the urgency exists before the conviction of the DUI, not after; deterring
measures do not solve the problem, preemptive solutions do. So in learning from the
current government approach and the laws established, what can be extracted from
this approach to establish prevention, not deterrence? In coordination to ignition
interlock systems and sobriety check points, the idea is to engineer an embedded
system that is transparent to the driver, and bypass the intrusion aspect. In
addition to circumvention, an embedded software that is nimble and able to overcome circumventing factors. The synergy between motorist and the system must be
seamless and virtually go unnoticed to the driver. Readily have this sort of
technology implemented in all vehicles would be the solution to the problem of
drunk driving. This approach is efficient and necessary for the issue of drunk
driving. Rather than implementing sanctions and technology that essentially deter
drinking and driving, why not implement a self-sustaining mechanism that will
actually prevent the act of drinking and driving? Deterrence? Why not elimination?
The approaches that are used for deterrence now are not only inefficient, but also
questionable as to whether they are the long term solution to drunk driving. The
focus is to propose a technical solution, and implement a standard that will that will
mandate that all motor vehicles be equipped with an embedded software system
that prevents drunk driving. Virtually, this will eliminate all cost consequences
associated with drunk driving accidents. Mandating an embedded software system
for vehicles to counter-act, specifically, drinking and driving, can potentially
eliminate drinking and driving.
DIGEST OF IMPAIRED DRIVING LAWS, 25TH EDITION
18
My Proposal: A New
Standard
Based on the statistics presented in this paper, it would be impartial that the
establishing new law or sanctions would not be in the best approach to eliminating
drunk driving; at least not for now. Considering that there is law established for
research and development agencies to develop technology for vehicle safety, why not
minimize the process by solving the issue from the vehicle prospective; let the
vehicle be the preventer, and not deter the motorist. Deterring the motorist will not
end drunk driving, but a prevention factor in the vehicle will.
Establishing a regulatory standard that could practically eradicate fatalities and
cost caused by drunk driving. To pose and implement a new standard specifically for
drunk driving. Instruct SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers International) to form
a committee among the necessary personnel, to approve of the specific technology
that will eliminate drunk driving. In considering any new technological
developments, the process of SAE forming standards committee’s will be more
effective and brisk.
DIGEST OF IMPAIRED DRIVING LAWS, 25TH EDITION
19
“The Technical Solution”
A technology that no one could virtually circumvent; Instead, either a passive set of
breath sensors or touch-sensitive contact points on a steering wheel or gear shift
would immediately register the level of alcohol in the bloodstream, resulting in the
driver being unable to start the vehicle. With using the ignition interlock system as
precursor, this technology will essentially overcome all circumventions that
accompany the ignition interlock system. This
way, whether the person is intoxicated or not,
if their intoxication level exceeds the legal
“Rather than implementing sanctions and
threshold, they will not be able to start the
technology that essentially deter drinking
vehicle, resulting in reduction in the level of
deaths, personal injuries, and economic loss
and driving, why not implement a selfresulting from drunk driving. (DRIVER
sustaining mechanism that will actually
BEHAVIOR AND LEGAL SANCTIONS: A
prevent the act of drinking and driving?
STUDY OF DETERRENCE). A recent
Deterrence? Why not elimination?
national survey found that a vast majority of
Prevention over deterrence”
surveyed respondents (83.9%) thought that
requiring ignition interlock devices in vehicles
driven by convicted drunk drivers is a “good
idea” to a “very good” idea (35). Nearly 90% of
respondents in a recent AAA survey (2010) concurred that drivers who have been
convicted of DWI more than once should be required to use a device that prevents
their car from starting if they have been drinking(31). Considering this statistic,
undoubtedly this sort of technology will deem non-intrusive and will not consume
the idea of violating privacy rights. In taking sobriety check points and ignition
interlock systems into consideration, both in which invited the idea of intrusiveness,
DIGEST OF IMPAIRED DRIVING LAWS, 25TH EDITION
20
which resulted in why all states did not adopt or enforce these laws. Although
Federal law required and forced states to adopt these laws, state’s will, in a lot of
cases, adopt their own approach to drunk driving by heightening police awareness
on drunk drivers. Considering this prospective, it can be concluded that the public
will support this technology; perhaps demand this technology.
To conclude, what is the solution? Technology. Government has exhausted all of what she
can to eradicate drunk driving. The demand for man power, and extensive laws that begin to
contradict and violate human rights, and ultimately deter drunk drivers is not the answer;
Technology is the answer. Some type of embedded system that will prevent the act of
operating a motorized vehicle while intoxicated. How is this proven? Current technology
that prevents other driving errors committed by humans- Semi-autonomous systems in
today’s vehicles. Some of which prevent error that results in collisions such as overriding of
the braking system when the proximity of another vehicle is being sensed in front of the
vehicle. Another is sensory of when a driver swerves out of the lanes of a highway, in which
the steering system is supersedes the driver’s control, maneuvering the vehicle back into the
lanes of the highway.
The drawback of implementing such technology is like any other system with a
software program, software failure. Another could be a technical solution that is
premature, or something that relies on other elements. An example of a technology
that relies on other elements would be of one that was in early development as a
preventive measure to drunk driving using laser technology called “Stand-off
Technology”, in which laser technology was is used for alcohol detection. The
obstacle with this particular software project was proximity and potential error in
reading BAC levels of a motorist. These devices were essentially placed on the side
of a road or highway, reading the BAC level as motorist passed by. This approach
invites other potential error in reading the BAC of a person in a vehicle traveling at
various speeds. Also, once the readings were complete, the cars location and vehicle
identification was sent to law enforcement personnel. This system posed more
complication and inefficiency. However, like any other software system, it could be
developed and engineered to be highly functional with low maintenance, promoting
lower cost. This also suggests, like the ignition interlock system, that the software
must be a direct interaction between the motorist and the software mechanism
itself, eliminating complication. Essentially the software will have to be nimble,
affordable, accurate, and require low maintenance. Synergy between the driver and
the software system must also be seamless.
DIGEST OF IMPAIRED DRIVING LAWS, 25TH EDITION
21
DIGEST OF IMPAIRED DRIVING LAWS, 25TH EDITION
22
To illustrate an idea on how states enforce the current laws, Table 1 in Appendix A
is a chart that clarifies each state’s enforcement approach:
Appendix A: STATE ENFORCEMENT ON
DRUNK DRIVING
DIGEST OF IMPAIRED DRIVING LAWS, 25TH EDITION
23