There have been substantial reductions in motor vehicle crashes in the past three decades. This has been largely a result of vehicle design improvements and the development of an increasing number of vehicle safety features. In 2014, data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) revealed that still almost 1/3 of road crashes are due to impaired driving, and almost half of all fatalities are unrestrained. Road safety issues that pose the greatest concern include drunk driving, drugged driving, distracted driving and drowsy driving. These latter two topics are of special concern since police officers often lack the tools to accurately identify distracted or fatigued drivers following a crash. Evidence of these behaviours is limited, and drivers are not likely to be forthcoming about their actions if they survive the event. In 2015, crash data showed a substantial increase in road crashes that was approximately 7.2%. Most concerning was that this anticipated increase in 2015 effectively eliminated years of declines that were previously achieved. In light of this disquieting trend, NHTSA has taken action to draw upon the new research that has emerged from diverse disciplines, and brought together knowledgeable researchers and experienced practitioners along with other experts in a series of five regional summits to discuss the crash problem. The objective of these summits was to increase understanding of more targeted and effective ways to influence the proportion of drivers who continue to exhibit high-risk behaviours that most often contribute to fatalities. Priorities included speed, non-use of seatbelts and unlicensed driving in an effort to reinstate gains. NHTSA also acknowledged that levels of traffic enforcement have significantly declined as a result of competing public safety priorities, economic cuts, and increased oversight of officers. This has meant that a shrinking number of police agencies have a dedicated traffic c unit, and that patrol officers are generally less able to conduct routine traffic enforcement activities. For this reason, more efficient approaches to traffic safety countermeasures are needed, along with the more consistent use of the broad array of proven countermeasures. Ignition interlocks are one such countermeasure that research has shown to be strongly effective in reducing alcohol-impaired driving. More importantly, work is underway to identify ways to sustain reductions in recidivism once the device is removed. For this reason, NHTSA has supported the Association of Ignition Interlock Program Administrators, which has played a vital role in the development and implementation of more robust programs, and has been a fulcrum to share knowledge, inform best practices, and encourage widespread use of them. Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) has also been an important partner in working to reduce impaired driving fatalities. It has championed the pursuit of better legislation to close loopholes and ensure that more impaired driving offenders, and ultimately all impaired driving offenders, are able to drive legally with an ignition interlock installed on their vehicle. Since the inception of their Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving in 2006, MADD has successfully passed all-offender interlock legislation, with strong support from diverse partners, in 25 states as of May 2016. In addition, Maryland and Vermont are poised to become the 26th and 27th states once legislation is signed into law. MADD also published a report in 2016, that examined the number of drunk driving trips that had been prevented by alcohol interlocks after legislation was implemented. This analysis was based on alcohol interlock data from devices provided by 11 manufacturers. Notably, the report revealed that more than 12.7 million trips were prevented after drivers provided a breath sample that contained a level of breath alcohol that exceeded the preset cutoff in the jurisdictions, and further showed that 1.77 million drunk driving trips (at .08 BAC or higher) were stopped. The report included a series of case studies that examined the effects of alcohol interlock laws in select states, and included a series of recommendations to improve the delivery of interlock programs. Five of these recommendations pertained to laws and three of them pertained to program features. A copy of the report is available at www.madd.org. In 2016, AIIPA conference presentations highlighted the current practices and operational strategies related to a variety of program features including: • program growth and participation; • legislation; • the use of new device features; • monitoring strategies; • strategies to support special populations; • stakeholder partnerships; and, • service center inspections. Lessons learned in each of these areas are summarized in the proceedings which are based on individual presentations that were delivered during the conference. These proceedings can provide decision-makers, ignition interlock program administrators and staff, and their many partners in program implementation, with knowledge and insight to assist others in guiding the implementation of these strategies in their own jurisdictions. This report summarizes the learning and knowledge that was captured through presentations at this event. KEY MESSAGES: * In 2015, crash data from the National Highway Traffic c Safety Administration (NHTSA) showed a substantial increase in road crashes that effectively eliminated years of declines that were previously achieved. * NHTSA has responded by drawing upon new research that has emerged from diverse disciplines, and brought together knowledgeable researchers and experienced practitioners in a series of regional summits to discuss this problem. The objective was to increase understanding of more targeted and effective ways to influence the proportion of drivers who continue to exhibit high-risk behaviours that most often contribute to fatalities. * Alcohol interlocks are one such countermeasure that research has shown to be strongly effective in reducing alcohol-impaired driving, and work is underway to identify ways to sustain reductions in recidivism once the device is removed. (Author/publisher)
Abstract