The purpose of this note is to inform parliamentary debate on the advisability of making it compulsory at EU level to fit alcohol interlocks to all new commercial passenger and goods transport vehicles, or to certain categories of vehicles according to their use or, finally, to specific target groups of users. As well as reflecting the current state of play, the analysis set out below examines the role and effectiveness of alcohol interlocks as a preventive countermeasure against the problem of drink-driving and summarises the findings of the cost-benefit assessment of two possible mandatory uses of alcohol interlocks. The first focuses on the potential impact of a rehabilitation programme for drink-drivers operating private vehicles, while the second estimates the potential benefits of implementing a preventive programme tailored to commercial vehicles - Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs), Light Goods Vehicles (LGVs), buses and coaches. In addition, the note estimates the potential contribution of alcohol interlocks in achieving the road safety target set by the European Union (EU), which aims to reduce by half the number of road fatalities by 2020, in both areas. Driving under the influence of alcohol is one of the principal factors contributing to road accidents, particularly those with severe or deadly consequences. It is estimated that 25 % of all road casualties in the European Union (EU) every year (approximately 7 000) may be attributed to drink-driving, while 75 % of all alcohol-related fatalities involve drivers with a blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) higher than 1.5 g/l. Drink-driving is a major issue for drivers aged between 16 and 20, for whom alcohol-related collisions are the leading cause of death. This age group is three times more likely to crash in comparison to experienced drivers (aged 30 or older). The likelihood of this occurring is increased because alcohol is often mixed with other psychoactive substances (illegal and medicinal drugs). In regard to commercial vehicles, drink-driving is estimated to cause approximately 2.5 %-3.3 % of road accidents, although data for this category is usually reported to be sparse or not officially available. The lack of reliable data is an issue that negatively impacts the overall quantification of the drink-driving phenomenon, as confirmed by the stakeholders interviewed, owing to significant disparities in analysis of alcohol-related road fatalities at a national level, mostly due to differing definitions of drink-driving, underreporting and varying levels of enforcement. Three different practices for the use of alcohol interlocks are currently in operation: * a mandatory use as part of a rehabilitation programme for certain categories of drink-drivers (hard-core drink-drivers, recidivists and first-time offending drink-drivers); * a mandatory preventive use; or ?a voluntary preventive use. Currently, approximately 430 500 alcohol interlocks are installed worldwide (the majority in North America), out of which 110 000 are in use in EU Member States. The use of alcohol interlocks as driver impairment detection devices was initially recommended within the EU by the Road Safety Action Programme (RSAP) 2003-2010 with the Commission subsequently placing greater emphasis on their potential role when it adopted the policy orientations on road safety for 2011-2020. It should be noted that the rationale for such action is not merely to achieve the overall road safety target of halving the number of road fatalities by 2020, but also to support Member States in their health policy efforts to reduce alcohol-related harm, as specified in the 2006 EU alcohol strategy Sweden was the first EU country to launch a pilot trial in 1999 which subsequently evolved into a permanent alcohol interlock rehabilitation programme. Regulatory frameworks in this field of application have also been adopted in Belgium, Finland, the Netherlands, Denmark and the United Kingdom, although practical implementation has yet to happen in the last two Member States. Austria, Germany and Slovenia have carried out, or are currently enacting, pilot projects to assess the feasibility of introducing alcohol interlock programmes. France and Finland provide two relevant examples where alcohol interlocks are fitted following legislative mandatory preventive use whereby alcohol interlocks must be installed in all commercial vehicles performing school and day-care transport. Finally, in Sweden, Finland and Germany, alcohol interlocks are also in use on a voluntary basis as a preventive mechanism in commercial vehicles as they are primarily considered to be tools of quality assurance and corporate social responsibility. Analysis of a potential rehabilitation programme for private vehicle drivers yielded an overall benefit-cost ratio of 1.9 for a baseline EU wide application of an alcohol interlock programme that targeted persistent drink-drivers. This corresponds to a remarkably positive socioeconomic result. A sensitivity analysis of the results found that the minimum acceptability threshold of the programme would be reached even if its effectiveness was halved in comparison to the initial value assumed. The cost-benefit analysis also demonstrated that, over a ten-year period, this would contribute 7.3 % (approximately 1 100 lives saved) towards the reduction of road fatalities as part of overall efforts that could be established to achieve the EU road safety target by 2020. Analysis of a potential prevention programme for commercial vehicles yielded a negative result (0.2) for the installation of alcohol interlocks in all commercial vehicles. However, the ratio equals or approaches the break-even point for the installation of alcohol interlocks in buses and coaches (1.0) and HGVs (0.9). One factor that influences the outcome of the cost-benefit analysis is the cost of installation. If this annual cost was reduced from EUR 1 200 to EUR 1 000, the benefit-cost ratio would increase by 10 % for buses and coaches (1.1) and HGVs (1.0), while it would remain almost unchanged for LGVs and the commercial vehicle fleet as a whole. Finally, the analysis also demonstrated that a mandatory fitting in all commercial vehicles (LGVs, HGVs and passenger vehicles) could contribute 1.3 % (approximately 200 lives saved) towards the reduction of road fatalities as part of overall efforts that could be established to achieve the EU road safety target by 2020. As a result, the authors recommend that the opportunity to legislate with a view to extending the mandatory use of alcohol interlocks be considered: ?as part of rehabilitation programmes targeting certain categories of users, and ?as a preventive measure in specific categories of commercial vehicles, either because of the safety-sensitivity of the transport services they operate, or because of their size and mass. To this end, a five-year timescale is proposed to legislate in this field, followed by an additional two-year period to enable Member States to adopt the relevant piece of EU legislation. This timeframe should also allow for further investigation as to whether vehicles’ technological developments might lead to a reduction in costs and, subsequently, whether larger number of alcohol interlocks might be installed. In addition to the suggestions above, it is also recommended that: ?The qualitative and quantitative knowledge base in relation to drink-driving should be improved, particularly in relation to the scale of the problem among professional drivers. More detailed and harmonised figures across all Member States, in combination with legislation to reconcile both BAC levels and reporting procedures, as well as the definition of drink-driving, would make it possible to clarify various aspects of the problem and thus establish more effective monitoring and enforcement mechanisms. ?Harmonisation of technical standards and quality requirements for alcohol interlocks should be promoted. Harmonisation should specifically address functional specifications, technical requirements for retrofitting and a common code for alcohol interlocks for driving licences. ?Pilot trials specifically targeting commercial vehicles should be encouraged and incentives provided, for example through financial support or the prospect for transport companies to gain a positive risk rating as part of the risk rating system set up under EU social legislation. This would make it possible not only to compile a more comprehensive statistical base but also to test the effectiveness of alcohol interlocks more promptly. It will be crucial to engage with both alcohol interlock and vehicle manufacturers as partners in this development process. Further consideration could also be given to possibly combining the functionalities of the digital tachograph with those of the alcohol interlock. ?Cooperation, exchange of information and best practices between Member States should also be encouraged. (Author/publisher)
Samenvatting