A New Strategy on Drunk Driving

After years of handing out unproductive harsh sentences for convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol, lawmakers nationwide are focusing on a smarter method - prevention rather than punishment.

More than 11,000 people died in alcohol-related crashes in the United States in 2008, but that sad and staggering number is a sign of improvement - it's 9% drop from 2007, and it's 60% lower than the 26,000 deaths in 1983. There are fewer deaths because fewer people are drinking and driving, and one reason for this is the increased reliance on ignition interlock devices (IIDs), like the one pictured above, that require drivers to test their blood alcohol content before getting behind the wheel - after their first drunk driving conviction.

New Mexico was the first state to pass a first-offense interlock law in 2004, and 11 states have followed since. A new highway bill before Congress would tie federal funds to laws requiring IIDs after first DUI offense. I think it's an idea whose time has come, and one that effectively shifts drunk driving penalties from ineffective long sentences and hefty fines to a prevention model.

The move toward IIDs hasn't come without controversy, of course. More than 150,000 drivers have IIDs installed in their cars today in the U.S., and while most studies have found IIDs to be effective in reducing drunk driving arrests, a few have found mixed results. Some critics question the effectiveness of the devices - they can sometimes read false positives for things like breath mints or mouthwash. Others say Mothers Against Drunk Driving supports the policy because the group is funded in part by IID manufacturers.

While this reform can only address about 30% of accidents - since 70% of the 1.4 million Americans arrested each year for drunk driving are first-time offenders - it's a wise policy and the stats cited by the critics are questionable. DUI lawyer and blogger Lawrence Taylor points to a study in California that found an 84% higher crash rate among drivers ordered to install IIDs compared to those with other penalties. The same study found significantly lower rates of re-arrest and the DMV has complained that the report has been mis-represented by the American Beverage Institute and others.

One of the problems found in California was that drivers ordered to install IIDs didn't comply and illegally drove cars without the devices. We'll never get 100% compliance and it's counterproductive to argue that a prevention method is unsuccessful because people will find loopholes. The inconvenience and cost associated with IIDs are reserved for people who have been convicted of a serious and dangerous crime, and it's less inconvenient than losing access to a car for a period of months or years. Punishment methods of the past - putting offenders in jail or taking their license - disrupt lives. Installing IIDs prevents drinking and driving, while allowing drivers to continue with their lives.

More study is needed as we move toward this method in the years ahead, but all signs right now indicate that IIDs are the kind of prevention that both saves lives and offers people convicted of drinking and driving a second chance.