"Unfortunately, existing technology--the ignition interlock--has gotten little use in Illinois and most other states. Of the 1.4 million people arrested each year for DUI, only 100,000 end up with interlock devices. … They are the most promising available tool for curbing a fatal scourge that still claims lives every day. The pertinent question is not "should we require them?" but "what are we waiting for?" – Chicago Tribune editorial, November 2006

Administrative license sanctions (link to ALR) are effective at deterring people from committing drunk driving. Unfortunately, they aren't effective at preventing people who don't have a license from driving (link to DWS); 50 to 75 percent of those whose licenses are suspended or revoked drive anyway. (Nichols and Ross, 1990)

That's why we need ignition interlocks for all DUI offenders, even first time offenders, who are about as likely to reoffend as repeat offenders (link to first offenders). Interlocks have been shown in a number of studies to reduce recidivism. The research is clear that interlocks reduce repeat offenders by 60-90 percent:

The devices have also proven very effective when applied to first-time offenders:

• New Mexico found a decrease in recidivism by over a half among first offenders who installed interlock devices. (Voas et al, 2005)
• West Virginia found a 77 percent decrease in recidivism among interlocked first offenders. (Tippetts and Voas, 1998)
• Cincinnati found a 65 percent decrease in recidivism. (Elliott and Morse, 2002)
• Alberta found over a 95 percent reduction in recidivism among interlocked first offenders. (Voas et al, 1999)
• Quebec found a 80 percent reduction in recidivism among first offenders (Vezina, 2002)
• A Swedish evaluation among interlocks for first and multiple offenders found recidivism dropped to nearly zero. (Bjerre, 2003)

Mandatory laws are necessary, since only 10 percent or less of offenders will install the devices if given the option. (Voas et al, 1999) MADD has a number of recommendations for laws that get interlocks installed on as many offenders as possible – read our ignition interlock white paper for details.

Studies:

• Beck, Kenneth H. et al. “Effects of Ignition Interlock License Restrictions on Drivers With Multiple Alcohol Offenses: A Randomized Trial in Maryland.” American Journal of Public Health 89 (1999): 1696­1700.
• Bjerre, B. “An Evaluation of the Swedish Interlock Program.” Traffic Injury Prevention, 4(2) (2003), 98-104.
• Coben, Jeffrey and Gregory Larkin. “Effectiveness of Ignition Interlock Devices in Reducing Drunk Driving Recidivism.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 16 (1S) (1999): 81-87.
• Elliott, DS and BJ Morse. Hamilton County Drinking and Driving Study. Interlock Evaluation: Two-Year Findings. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado Institute of Behavioral Science, 1992.
• Frank, JF et al. “Illinois Ignition Interlock Evaluation.” Alcohol Drugs and Traffic Safety – T2002. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety. Ed. DR Mayhew and C. Dussault, 2002.
• Marine, W., et al. “Results of Colorado’s Voluntary Alcohol Ignition Interlock Pilot Program: Evaluation and Recommendations for Change.” Denver, CO: University of Colorado Health Science Center, 2000.
• Nichols, James, and H. Lawrence Ross. "The Effectiveness of Legal Sanctions in Dealing with Drinking Drivers.” Alcohol, Drugs and Driving 6(2) (1990): 33-55. (Click here)
• Popkin, CL et al. “An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Interlock Systems in Preventing DWI Recidivism among Second-Time DWI Offenders.” Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety – T-92: Proceedings of the 12th Interlock Conference on Alcohol Drugs and Traffic Safety. Ed. H-D Utzelmann, G Berghaus, G Kroj, 1992.
• Tashima, H.N.and C.J. Helander. 1999 Annual Report of the California DUI Management Information System. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Motor Vehicles Research and Development Section, 1999.
• Tippetts, A. Scott and Robert Voas. “The Effectiveness of the West Virginia Interlock Program.” Journal of Traffic Medicine 26 (1-2) (1998): 19-24.
• Vezina. “The Quebec Alcohol-Ignition Interlock Program: Impact on Recidivism and Crashes.” Alcohol Drugs and Traffic Safety – T2002. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety. Ed. DR Mayhew and C. Dussault, 2002. <http://www.saaq.gouv.qc.ca/t2002/actes/pdf/(08a).pdf>
• Voas, Robert, et al. “The Alberta Interlock Program: The Evaluation of a Province-Wise Program on DUI Recidivism.” Addiction 94 (12) (1999): 1849-1859.
• Voas, Robert, Paul Marques, and Richard Roth. "Evidence that Interlocks Are Effective with First Offenders." 6th Annual Ignition Interlock Symposium, 2005. <http://www.tirf.ca/whatNew/newsItemPDFs/Bob_Voas.pdf>
• Weinrath, Michael.“Ignition Interlock Program for Drunk Drivers: A Multivariate Test.” Crime and Delinquency 43 (1) (1997): 42-59.
• Willis, C., Lybrand, S., & Bellamy, N. “Alcohol Ignition Interlock Programmes for Reducing Drink Driving Recidivism.” Cochran Database of Systematic Reviews (2005).