It’s one thing to tell someone who has been convicted of driving under the influence that he or she can’t drive. It’s an entirely different thing to physically prevent that person from starting the car when he or she has consumed alcoholic beverages.
That’s why it only makes sense that a new Kansas law that requires first-time DUI offenders to install ignition interlocks on their cars would have a positive effect on the number of alcohol-related accidents reported in the state.
A decrease in alcohol-related traffic accidents and fatalities always is good news. State officials reported a 12 percent drop in alcohol-related accidents: from 2,801 in 2010 to 2,463 in 2011. There was an even more dramatic drop in fatal accidents involving alcohol: from 138 in 2010 to 76 in 2011, a decline of about 45 percent.
Officials aren’t ready to say that the new ignition interlock law, which went into effect on July 1, 2011, was the primary reason for the decline. They say intense news coverage of the new DUI law and a statewide effort to crack down on drunken driving probably also helped drive the number of incidents down. Nonetheless, common sense tells us the ignition interlocks would be a strong contributing factor.
Suspending a person’s driver’s license doesn’t keep that person from driving. In far too many cases over the years, serious alcohol-related accidents have involved impaired drivers with previous DUI convictions. Many of those people were driving without valid driver’s licenses, but that didn’t keep them from getting behind the wheel. Having to use an ignition interlock device that measures their blood-alcohol content before allowing them to start their cars creates a physical impediment to such drivers.
Most states have ignition interlock laws, but Kansas is one of just 15 states that has such a law for first-time DUI offenders. Drivers convicted of a DUI must apply for modified licenses that allow them to drive only cars equipped with an ignition interlock and present proof that such a device has been installed in their cars, at their expense. According to the Kansas Department of Revenue, nearly 3,000 Kansas drivers had applied for such licenses from July 1, 2011, through March 2, 2012. First-time offenders must use the interlock device for a year.
It’s certainly possible for drivers to evade the law by driving an unmonitored vehicle, but stiffer DUI penalties that also went into effect last July — including fines, license suspensions, jail time and possible felony convictions for repeat offenders — provide added incentive not to drink and then drive.
As state officials noted, it’s too soon to know whether the ignition interlock provision should get the credit for the decline in alcohol-related accidents or is just part of an overall successful strategy in the state. Either way, the decline in alcohol-related accidents and deaths is good news for Kansas.
Comments
cowboy 1 year, 1 month ago
The DUI industry , court fines , DCCCA , interlocks , etc has been largely ineffective.
Why not attempt to cut off the source. Require ID for any alcohol purchase. If you have any alcohol related offense your ID is marked restricting purchases of alcohol.
markoo 1 year, 1 month ago
"The DUI industry , court fines , DCCCA , interlocks , etc has been largely ineffective."
That's a broad brush you use to paint a number of groups into a negative light. Do you have any supporting evidence for your assertion at all with each group listed?
Seems the article above implies otherwise.
superswagg56 1 year, 1 month ago
What is wrong with you? Having experienced it...interlock devices are highly effective. Just because a person makes one mistake why should their ability to purchase alcohol be restricted? Secondly not everyone has to produce an ID to purchase alcohol which makes your suggestion totally inane.
sciencegeek 1 year, 1 month ago
This touches on a largely underrated offense: driving on a suspended license. One of the reasons it is so common is that the penalty, if caught, is insignificant. What it it actually HURT to drive with a suspended license? If there was jail time or stiff fines for doing it, it might make people think twice before doing it. Now, there's no reason for drunks, habitual speeders, rotten drivers, etc. not to thumb their noses at a suspended license. Why suspend a license if it doesn't matter?
superswagg56 1 year, 1 month ago
$300 fine/30 days in jail for first offense/ $1000 fine/ 90 days in jail MANDATORY for second offense!! Next time find out what your talking about!!! OK?
cowboy 1 year, 1 month ago
It is an industry plain and simple . The courts make money , the "treatment & evaluation" centers make money , the interlock companies make money. It's common knowledge that court ordered treatment has a ridiculously low percentage of effecting change. Society's changing tolerance of drunkeness has had an effect.
Having had 3 family members killed by a drunk driver , worked in community mental health in my younger years , and watched close friends and family struggle with alcohol over the years , the courts and ordered treatment have little to do with stopping the cycle of abuse.
Cut off the supply.
markoo 1 year, 1 month ago
"It is an industry plain and simple . The courts make money , the "treatment & evaluation" centers make money , the interlock companies make money."
Very cynical of you. Of course if you break anything down in such overlysimplistic terms, one can easily conclude that someone makes money on pretty much anything and everything around us.
"It's common knowledge that court ordered treatment has a ridiculously low percentage of effecting change."
Really? Guess I didn't know how truly common this is. I ask again, do you have any supporting evidence that backs your assertion as well as the "common knowledge" of everyone, or should I just ask around and see how ignorant I've been this whole time?
And BTW, research does undermine your "common knowledge" assertion:
----->"Systematic research on mandated treatment for DUI offenders since the early 1980s (Mann et al. 1994; Wells-Parker and Williams 2004) has provided a relatively clear picture of the effectiveness of this treatment as well as its limitations. In general, research has consistently shown that treatment has a modest effect on reducing drinking–driving and alcohol-impaired crashes among offenders who are mandated to attend and who actually receive the intervention (Wells-Parker and Williams 2002).
A meta-analysis of studies of the effectiveness of treatment and intervention with DUI offenders revealed several reliable patterns (Wells-Parker et al. 1995). An examination of crashes and DUI events over several years showed that alcohol-specific interventions and alcoholism treatment were better at reducing alcohol-related driving and crashes than interventions which were not alcohol specific. However, nonspecific interventions—such as revoking drivers’ licenses—were better at reducing all types of crashes (including crashes that did not involve alcohol), probably because they reduce overall driving exposure. Thus, the best strategy is to combine alcohol-related interventions and treatment with licensing actions to reduce impaired driving and crashes in general among DUI offenders who, as a group, are known to be high-risk drivers even when not impaired (Donovan et al. 1988; Donovan et al. 1985). Although the meta-analysis was conducted in 1992, more recent studies generally have confirmed the results (Hon 2003). Combining treatment with nontreatment sanctions that prevent offenders from drinking and driving (e.g., license revocation and alcohol ignition interlocks, which require the driver to pass an alcohol breath test before starting a car) also reduces the public’s risk while offenders are receiving treatment.
http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh291/41-48.htm
markoo 1 year, 1 month ago
"Having had 3 family members killed by a drunk driver , worked in community mental health in my younger years , and watched close friends and family struggle with alcohol over the years , the courts and ordered treatment have little to do with stopping the cycle of abuse."
I'm truly sorry to hear of your family members passing away. I too have lost close ones to drugs and alcohol-related incidents. It goes to show just how much this disease effects everyone. The court-system, treatment centers, and deterrent methods are by no means perfect, but they clearly show they are having an effect at decreasing the numbers of recidivism and DUIs. Thankfully, your personal story is not congruent with what the research bears out.
So getting back to your statement, when you say: "'Why not attempt to cut off the source. Require ID for any alcohol purchase. If you have any alcohol related offense your ID is marked restricting purchases of alcohol."
It could be because it can be argued that it is not necessarily the "source." There are many nonviolent alcoholics who choose not to drive and need not be punished as a consequence (not that I'm excusing their personal destructive behaviors, just making a point). IOW, it's not so much alcohol that causes a problem, rather, it's alcohol + driving which is the problem. Your statement also leaves out the obvious problem of other drug-induced DUI's, i.e. OTC Rx medications.
cowboy 1 year, 1 month ago
"According to Mothers Against Drunk Driving, one-third of all DUI arrests involve offenders who have had at least one previous DUI charge. Mandatory alcohol assessment, education and treatment has been shown to reduce repeat offenses by as much as seven to nine percent."
Stating in reverse is that for approximately 90% of offenders there is not a significant change. This tracks pretty well with any type of therapy. Few people actually change. They stop when they are ready to stop...or not.
Cut off the supply !
markoo 1 year, 1 month ago
"Stating in reverse is that for approximately 90% of offenders there is not a significant change"
I'm sorry, but that's not how statistical analysis works. You need to understand what you're arguing before attempting to make a point. What they are stating in that statement is that there is a 7-9% reduction in repeat offenses, but that in no way entails a so-called failure rate of the remaining 91-93%. It's like stating a presidential approval rate of, say, 55%, but that does not in any way mean that 45% disapprove - hence the necessity for running a separate survey for that specific question.
By the way, I searched your quote, which the EHow article further stated:
"Mandatory alcohol education and assessment treatment seems to work best when coupled with other DUI sanctions such as fines, community service, loss of driving privileges or jail time."
Again, the research bears this out. If you read the source I posted from NIAAA and NIH publications, you'd notice things like this:
"A recent study (Wells-Parker and Williams 2002) examined the effects of adding a brief individual intervention component to an existing court-mandated group intervention program for first-time DUI offenders. These researchers were particularly interested in which offenders benefited most from the additional supportive counseling. Approximately 4,000 first-time DUI offenders were randomly assigned to either a standard first-offender program or to the standard program plus the brief counseling component (the combination program).
In the standard program, offenders were exposed to cognitive-behavioral and motivational techniques in groups and through homework assignments and some education concerning the effects of alcohol and other drugs on health and behavior. The combined intervention added two 20-minute sessions of supportive counseling that provided individual feedback concerning problems such as feelings of sadness; these additional sessions were designed to enhance motivation and the confidence to change behavior.
The recidivism rate for offenders who did not report depressed mood was similar for the two programs. However, offenders who reported being depressed and who received the combination program had recidivism rates that were 35 percent lower than those of depressed offenders who received the standard program only. Results suggested that depressed offenders initially were more likely to recognize that they had a drinking problem and needed to change, and were more likely to try to change, than those not reporting depression, but the depressed offenders also were less confident in their ability to change." "
So it appears that a combination of sanctions and therapy, let alone identifying the best method of therapy appears to be effective in reducing recidivism. Merely cutting off the supply doesn't answer much at all. Again, please read better sources such as the one above and understand what actually supports or refutes arguments.
cowboy 1 year, 1 month ago
While your support of counseling is commendable Markoo , the studies are primarily produced by providers to validate their services or approaches. I would assume you are in the counseling field. Want to effect change in an alcoholic , get them sober for a period of time.
We currently let them out of jail hours after getting picked up. Why not hold them for 24 hours , let them miss a day of work , have some immediate impact. Simple learning theory requires a negative reinforcement to be immediate , courts take months to apply a sentence.
Cut off the supply and minimize the access opportunities. The only ones hurt by this is the bars and liquor retailers. Alcohol is the dominant poison in society and the impact on families is devastating yet we continue to allow the abusers access.
Ask most people who have gone thru these programs and they will describe them as absolutely lame.
Have a good one Markoo
Liberty275 1 year, 1 month ago
Interlocks on first offenders are unconstitutional. One occasion of breaking a mid-level law is not enough to justify repeatedly searching someone, and these horrible little devices are nothing but illegal search robots. The only reason they haven't been made illegal is because the government cannot force you to own a car.
If you agreed to put one of those things on your car after being found guilty one time, I feel for you. It would be a hard decision for me. OTOH, You gotta stop drinking and driving. Those days are over.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.