ABI supports the use of ignition interlock devices for repeat offenders and first-time offenders with BAC levels of .15 or higher, but opposes laws requiring low-BAC first-time offenders to install interlocks. States already lack the resources to ensure that the most dangerous drunk drivers — who are responsible for the vast majority of alcohol-related traffic fatalities — are complying with ignition interlock court orders. Funds and personnel should not be further diluted by ineffective all-offender IID laws, and should instead be focused on keeping dangerous hardcore drunk drivers off the road.

Ignition interlocks are devices that require drivers to prove their sobriety before starting the engine. In most states, convicted drunk drivers are required or strongly encouraged to install these devices on their cars to regain driving privileges. While ABI supports the use of ignition interlocks for repeat offenders and first-time offenders with BAC levels of .15 or higher, ABI opposes laws requiring low-BAC first-time offenders to install interlocks because the programs are ineffective and siphon resources from legitimate highway safety programs.

Adapted from Traffic Injury Research Foundation USA 2016 Annual Ignition Interlock Survey: United States

Ignition interlocks only work while the devices are installed on an offender’s car. Once the device is taken off, offenders re-offend at the same rate as those who never installed an interlock. States struggle to enforce ignition interlock mandates—the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates only 15-20 percent of drunk driving offenders actually comply with their sentences and install interlocks on their vehicles. Recent research indicates compliance rates may be even lower: Traffic Injury Research Foundation USA puts Kentucky’s ignition interlock compliance rate at less than 6 percent.

That means the vast majority of high-BAC drunk drivers — who commit 70 percent of alcohol-related traffic fatalities – are not being adequately prevented from getting behind the wheel while under the influence.

These limitations are why states should use their limited financial resources to following up with the repeat and high-BAC offenders who pose the greatest danger on the road. Instead of spreading traffic safety resources too thinly by requiring low-BAC, first-time offenders to install interlocks, states should first ensure the most dangerous hardcore offenders comply with interlock orders.



Related Content

KSL Investigates: Drunk drivers ignoring court orders, little enforcement

November 16, 2017 | In The News

Senate Committee to Vote on Drunken Driving Bills

October 19, 2017 | In The News

Would universal interlocks curb drunken driving in Maryland?

April 7, 2016 | Op-Ed

Interlocks aren’t the only answer

July 17, 2015 | Op-Ed

Save ignition interlocks for deadly drunks

April 9, 2015 | Op-Ed

Florida should reserve interlocks for dangerous drivers

February 3, 2015 | Op-Ed

Reserve ignition interlocks for hard-core offenders

January 9, 2015 | Op-Ed

Rethink ignition interlocks

August 13, 2014 | Letter to the Editor

Reserve interlocks for hard-core drunks

May 30, 2013 | Op-Ed

Ignition Interlocks Just Part of N.M.’s DWI Solution

February 5, 2010 | Letter to the Editor

Interlocks would end social drinking

January 25, 2010 | Op-Ed

Interlocks Didn’t Cause Drop in New Mexico Fatalities

December 31, 2009 | Op-Ed

Letter: MADD Goes Overboard with Plea for Interlocks

September 16, 2009 | Op-Ed

Restaurant Trade Association Says MADD Maryland is Wrong to Call for Interlocks for All Offenders

September 9, 2009 | Press Release

New York Times Blog Covers ABI Opposition to Universal Interlocks

May 19, 2009 | In The News

ABI Debates Interlocks

April 16, 2009 | In The News

Get ABI Email Updates

Sign up and get updates on the critical updates on alcohol policy that affect your business.