OBJECTIVE: There is a substantial body of evidence that the recidivism of impaired-driving offenders is reduced while an ignition interlock device (IID) is on their vehicles. This study examines changes in driving behaviors and drinking behaviors used by DWI offenders to manage driving with the IID. METHODS: A total of 166 IID participants who completed two surveys covering the period from arrest to IID installation (T1) and during IID use (T2) were examined. Four domains were covered: demographics, driving environments and transportation needs, reported driving activity, and reported drinking activities. Participants were on average 38 years old, 43% were female, 35% completed college, 34% had an income of more than $50,000, and 83% were employed. For those who provided it, the mean blood alcohol content (BAC) at arrest was .184 g/dL, with only 8 (5%) individuals below .08 g/dL, and 93 (56%) at over .18 g/dL. About 45% were repeat DWI offenders. RESULTS: Between T1 and T2 there was a slight increase in acknowledging public transportation was available (p=.001), an increase in other individuals driving the interlock-equipped vehicle (p=.002), an increase in the number of vehicles in the household not registered to the DWI offender (p< .001), and an increase in the number of participants who reported that driving was important to their lifestyle (p=.008). Initial (T1) expectations about whether the interlock would be a problem were significantly different from actual experiences reported in T2 (p<.001). With respect to alcohol consumption, 14% reported abstinence at T2 compared to 2% at T1 (p=.001) and the number of drinks per drinking occasion decreased from a mean of 4.90 at T1 to 3.14 at T2 (p=.001), but the number of drinking occasions increased by a third (p=.003). The number of drinking locations (p=.001), the frequency of stopping after work for a drink (p=.001), and drinking at a bar all decreased (p<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Interlock users make some adjustments in how they drink, the amount they drink, and where they drink. This finding suggests that there may be methods that can be used to extend the benefits of the IID beyond the sanction period.
OBJECTIVE: There is a substantial body of evidence that the recidivism of impaired-driving offenders is reduced while an ignition interlock device (IID) is on their vehicles. This study examines changes in driving behaviors and drinking behaviors used by DWI offenders to manage driving with the IID. METHODS: A total of 166 IID participants who completed two surveys covering the period from arrest to IID installation (T1) and during IID use (T2) were examined. Four domains were covered: demographics, driving environments and transportation needs, reported driving activity, and reported drinking activities. Participants were on average 38 years old, 43% were female, 35% completed college, 34% had an income of more than $50,000, and 83% were employed. For those who provided it, the mean blood alcohol content (BAC) at arrest was .184 g/dL, with only 8 (5%) individuals below .08 g/dL, and 93 (56%) at over .18 g/dL. About 45% were repeat DWI offenders. RESULTS: Between T1 and T2 there was a slight increase in acknowledging public transportation was available (p=.001), an increase in other individuals driving the interlock-equipped vehicle (p=.002), an increase in the number of vehicles in the household not registered to the DWI offender (p< .001), and an increase in the number of participants who reported that driving was important to their lifestyle (p=.008). Initial (T1) expectations about whether the interlock would be a problem were significantly different from actual experiences reported in T2 (p<.001). With respect to alcohol consumption, 14% reported abstinence at T2 compared to 2% at T1 (p=.001) and the number of drinks per drinking occasion decreased from a mean of 4.90 at T1 to 3.14 at T2 (p=.001), but the number of drinking occasions increased by a third (p=.003). The number of drinking locations (p=.001), the frequency of stopping after work for a drink (p=.001), and drinking at a bar all decreased (p<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Interlock users make some adjustments in how they drink, the amount they drink, and where they drink. This finding suggests that there may be methods that can be used to extend the benefits of the IID beyond the sanction period.
Authors: Randy W Elder; Robert Voas; Doug Beirness; Ruth A Shults; David A Sleet; James L Nichols; Richard Compton Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Paul Marques; Scott Tippetts; John Allen; Martin Javors; Christer Alling; Michel Yegles; Fritz Pragst; Friedrich Wurst Journal: Addiction Date: 2009-11-16 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Michael Scherer; Eduardo Romano; Sagan King; Paul Marques; Ann Romosz; Eileen Taylor; Thomas H Nochajski; Robert Voas; Amy Manning; Scott Tippetts Journal: J Stud Alcohol Drugs Date: 2022-07 Impact factor: 3.346
Authors: Robert B Voas; Anthony Scott Tippetts; Eduardo Romano; Thomas H Nochajski; Amy R Manning; Eileen Taylor; Michael Scherer Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2021-03-12 Impact factor: 3.455