Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 3:03 am
Time: 3:03 am
Results for alcohol-impaired driving
2 results foundAuthor: Traffic Injury Research Foundation Title: 2016 Annual Ignition Interlock Survey: United States Summary: 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 DWI 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 (NHTSA 2016). 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% (see: Kaufman & Wiebe 2016; Lucas et al. 2016; Vanlaar et al. 2017; McGinty et al. 2017) and reductions in DWI recidivism (McCartt et al. 2013). 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 (Casanova Powell et al. 2016). 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 five-star rating from MADD (MADD 2017). Details: Hamden, CT: TIRF, 2017. 72p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 14, 2017 at: http://tirf.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/TIRF-USA-Annual-Interlock-SurveyReport-19.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://tirf.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/TIRF-USA-Annual-Interlock-SurveyReport-19.pdf Shelf Number: 146101 Keywords: Alcohol Interlock DevicesAlcohol Law EnforcementAlcohol-Impaired DrivingDriving Under the InfluenceDriving While IntoxicatedDrunk DrivingIgnition Interlock ProgramTraffic Safety |
Author: Kerns, Timothy J. Title: Effectiveness of an ignition interlock device in reducing alcohol-impaired driving recidivism and alcohol-impaired motor vehicle crashes in Maryland Summary: Background: Multiple studies have shown that ignition interlock devices reduce alcohol impaired driving recidivism while the device is installed on the vehicle. However, many of these studies rely on convictions and have limited follow-up after the device has been removed from the vehicle. Objectives: The aims of this study were to compare the characteristics of drivers who installed an ignition interlock device after receiving an alcohol impaired driving citation and a control group that did not install the device and to determine their risk of receiving a subsequent alcohol related citation or being involved in an alcohol related crash. Methods: A Cox proportional hazard test was used to compare the risk of a subsequent citation or motor vehicle crash between the study groups. Results: The interlock group had a lower proportion of females (22.2% interlock vs 24.2% control, p<0.05), and a higher mean age (36.5 years vs 34.3 years, p<0.05). Forty-six percent of those installing an ignition interlock device had a BAC above 0.15 g/dL as compared with 25% in the control group (p<0.05). The BAC test refusal rate was higher among interlock installers (41.4% vs 33.0%, p<0.05). While the device was installed on the subject's vehicle, drivers were 22% less likely to receive an impaired driving citation as compared to the time when the device was not installed (HR=0.78; 95% CI: 0.73-0.84). After removal, the interlock group was 32% more likely to receive an impaired driving citation versus controls (HR=1.32; 95% CI: 1.22-1.42). Similar patterns were observed with respect to motor vehicle crashes. Conclusion: Drivers who have installed an ignition device on their vehicle have a lower risk of receiving a subsequent alcohol involved driving citation and of being involved in an alcohol related motor vehicle crash while the device is on the vehicle as compared to the control group. Upon removal, the risk of both citations and crashes is higher for those who had an interlock device installed. Ignition interlock devices are effective for the time they are used but should not be the only tool to prevent future events of alcohol involved driving among those previously arrested for impaired driving. Details: Baltimore, MD: University of Maryland, 2017. 118p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed October 20, 2017 at: https://archive.hshsl.umaryland.edu/bitstream/10713/6751/1/Kerns_umaryland_0373D_10843.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://archive.hshsl.umaryland.edu/bitstream/10713/6751/1/Kerns_umaryland_0373D_10843.pdf Shelf Number: 147743 Keywords: Alcohol Interlock DevicesAlcohol-Impaired DrivingDriving Under the InfluenceDrunk DrivingIgnition Interlock Program |