The Traffic Injury Research Foundation USA, Inc. (TIRF USA) in partnership with the Association of Ignition Interlock Program Administrators (AIIPA) and TIRF in Canada conducted a national survey in 2016 of the number of installed and active ignition interlocks in the United States (U.S.). These data provide a comprehensive picture of interlock installations across the U.S. and are a useful benchmark for state ignition interlock program administrators and the impaired driving community to measure interlock usage and growth in interlock programs on an annual basis. Drunk driving fatalities decreased 51 percent from 1982 to 2015, but it seems progress has been eroded in recent years. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), there were 1,089,171 DWI1 arrests in 2015. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reported 10,265 alcohol-impaired driving fatalities in 2015 which accounted for 29% of total fatalities. This is a 3.2 percent increase from 2014, compared to an overall increase in fatalities of 7.2 percent. Interlock programs have been proven to reduce impaired driving while the interlock is installed in the vehicle. Furthermore, interlocks are associated with a reduction in DWI deaths of up to 15% and reductions in DWI recidivism. Increasing program participation is paramount to reduce impaired driving fatalities and injuries. A NHTSA study of 28 state interlock programs revealed that there were eight interlock program components which may increase interlock use. The feature that was found to have the highest correlation with increasing interlock use was implementing a strong interlock requirement and/or incentive in legislation or policy. All states and the District of Columbia have some form of interlock law that includes either judicial discretion or an administrative requirement or a hybrid of the two. States are encouraged to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of their interlock programs. As a result, there have been several interlock law changes over the past few years. To illustrate, in 2014, Alabama, Mississippi, and Missouri passed a law requiring all DWI offenders to install an interlock. Indiana also passed legislation requiring ignition interlocks for repeat offenders, and to allow judges to order interlocks for first-time offenders. South Carolina passed Emma’s Law, which requires all high-BAC (0.15) offenders to install an interlock. In 2015, Delaware, and Texas passed an all DWI offender law requiring an interlock. In addition, Kentucky strengthened its ignition interlock law which required an interlock for repeat offenders, high-BAC (0.15) first offenders and offenders who refuse a chemical alcohol test. In 2016, Vermont and Washington D.C. passed an all offender interlock law, and Maryland passed “Noah’s law”, an all offender law with a fivestar rating from MADD. As of February 2017, 28 states (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia), the District of Columbia and four California counties require all alcohol-impaired driving offenders including first offenders, to install an interlock2. An additional 11 states (Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Wyoming) require interlocks for offenders with a high-BAC (usually 0.15% or higher) and for repeat offenders. Five states (Georgia, Idaho, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Wisconsin) require devices only for repeat offenders, and one state (Nevada) requires them only for highBAC offenders. Finally, four states (Indiana, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota) do not have mandatory interlock requirements but allow for judicial discretion. The purpose of this report is to provide accurate and reliable alcohol interlock data to states to allow yearly comparisons across jurisdictions and to enable interlock program managers and administrators to identify annual increases or decreases in program participation. It may also be used to inform national and state impaired driving behavioral campaigns. This report describes the methods used to collect and present the data and the “Results” section provides an overview of data obtained from states and manufacturers. It also presents estimates of participation rates of eligible offenders. This is followed by a summary section and the Appendices. (Author/publisher)
Samenvatting