The impact of interlock installation on driving behavior and drinking behavior related to driving

Nochajski, Thomas H.; Manning, Amy R.; Voas, Robert B.; Taylor, Eileen P.; Scherer, Michael; Romano, Eduardo

doi:10.1080/15389588.2020.1802020

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This noted change was paralleled by changes in drinking venues. In a separate survey of our participants, we were able to determine that this substantial reduction in alcohol consumption and in DUI risk was apparently achieved by drinking primarily at home and avoiding drinking in bars (Nochajski et al, 2020). This is in keeping with Beck and colleagues who found that IID offenders who avoided bars did better on the interlock (Beck et al, 2015).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such a reduction in DUI events (but not on alcohol consumption) after the IID was in place may not be an indication of further behavior modification, but rather a direct result of the attempts to drive after drinking being blocked by the interlock. Of note is that in Phase III, despite the IID, driving after drinking does not go down to zero, a result of some offenders circumventing the IID restrictions (Nochajski et al, 2020; Voas, 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…is that in Phase III, despite the IID, driving after drinking does not go down to zero, a result of some offenders circumventing the IID restrictions (Nochajski et al, 2020;Voas, 2020).…”

Section: Phase Iii: While On the Iidmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Changes in Alcohol Use and Drinking and Driving Outcomes From Before Arrest for Driving Under the Influence to After Interlock Removal

Voas

Tippetts

Romano

et al. 2021

Alcoholism Clin & Exp Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Half of the offenders convicted of impaired driving in the United States are sentenced to install alcohol ignition interlock devices (IIDs), which prevent them from starting their vehicles if they have been drinking. No research has yet explored offenders' patterns of alcohol consumption and driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) from the time before the arrest to the time period after the IID is installed. This study aims to fill that gap in knowledge.Methods: Using the Timeline Follow-back interview procedure, we assessed the daily drinking of 153 convicted DUI offenders' self-reported total alcohol consumption and rates of self-reported driving after drinking over 4 phases: before DUI arrest, between arrest and IID installation, during the phase on the interlock, and after the interlock is removed. Because information about behaviors in each period was not available for every participant, comparisons were made using paired-sample contrasts.Results: Compared with before the arrest, total alcohol use decreased by 50% in the 4-month phase following arrest and before IID installation, though it did not change much afterward. The frequency of drinking and driving decreased sharply after the arrest (À82%), with further decrease upon installation of the interlock (À58%, p = 0.05). The frequency of drinking and driving after the IID was removed returned to preinstallation drinking and driving status (+58%, p = 0.01).Conclusions: Participants made significant adjustments to their drinking behavior by adhering to the traditional DUI driving restrictions in the postarrest phase. Although installation of an IID was not associated with a significant change in drinking, it further reduced the frequency of drinking and driving. Evaluations of the IID experience should take into account information on an individual's drinking and DUI behaviors not only before the IID was installed, but before the individual was arrested.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Changes in Alcohol Use and Drinking and Driving Outcomes From Before Arrest for Driving Under the Influence to After Interlock Removal

Voas

Tippetts

Romano

et al. 2021

Alcoholism Clin & Exp Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is a considerable body of literature regarding the efficacious use of ignition interlock devices (IID) as a tool for reducing rates of drinking and driving while they are installed on the vehicle [3–7]. The devices are designed to prevent a driver from starting a vehicle if they have a breath alcohol level above an established threshold – in the state of New York, USA, this threshold is set at 0.024 g dL −1 ; significantly lower than the 0.08 g dL −1 illegal breath alcohol concentration level.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding non‐installers of the ignition interlock device: A qualitative analysis

Romosz

Scherer

Voas

et al. 2021

Drug and Alcohol Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Literature notes the efficacious use of alcohol ignition interlock devices (IID) in reducing rates of drinking and driving while installed on the vehicle. Some drivers who are convicted of driving while intoxicated (DWI) elect to have their license suspended/revoked instead of installing the device. These individuals represent a high‐risk subsample of drivers, yet limited literature has addressed this concern. The current study seeks to fill this gap using qualitative interviews addressing: (i) why do non‐installers make the choice to not install a mandated IID; and (ii) how are non‐installers managing without the IID? Methods The study utilises the Managing Heavy Drinkers study of drivers in Erie County, New York, USA. Participants were purposively sampled from a group of non‐installers (n = 6; four females, two males) who completed semi‐structured interviews. Constructed grounded theory was used to develop a theoretical understanding of participant's experiences. Results To understand why participants elect not to install the IID, thematic analysis revealed: alleviating constraints, predominantly the financial burdens associated with an IID, and institutional mistrust. Additionally, data revealed that participants are managing without the IID by mitigating apprehension. This included driving cautiously to avoid detection and utilising alternative transportation. Discussion and Conclusions This study furthers understanding of why drivers convicted of a DWI elect not to install an IID. Future research should seek to identify barriers to IID installation. This work provides evidence for establishing institutional protocols that ensure drivers convicted of a DWI receive consistent and correct information about the IID process.

show abstract

“…These so-called ignition interlock devices might also be installed in vehicles owned by convicted drunken drivers as a condition for them being granted a driving permit. 14,15 Interlocks have done much to lower recidivism rates among convicted drunken driving. 16 In the criminal justice system, inmates on day release or parole must comply with a breath alcohol test on their return to prison or submit to random testing at their homes.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Brief history of the alcohol biomarkers CDT, EtG, EtS, 5‐HTOL, and PEth

Jones

2023

Drug Testing and Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article traces the historical development of various biomarkers of acute and/or chronic alcohol consumption. Much of the research in this domain of clinical and laboratory medicine arose from clinics and laboratories in Sweden, as exemplified by carbohydrate deficient transferrin (CDT) and phosphatidylethanol (PEth). Extensive studies of other alcohol biomarkers, such as ethyl glucuronide (EtG), ethyl sulfate (EtS), and 5‐hydroxytryptophol (5‐HTOL), also derive from Sweden. The most obvious test of recent drinking is identification of ethanol in a sample of the person's blood, breath, or urine. However, because of continuous metabolism in the liver, ethanol is eliminated from the blood at a rate of 0.15 g/L/h (range 0.1–0.3 g/L/h), so obtaining positive results is not always possible. The widow of detection is increased by analysis of ethanol's non‐oxidative metabolites (EtG and EtS), which are more slowly eliminated from the bloodstream. Likewise, an elevated ratio of serotonin metabolites in urine (5‐HTOL/5‐HIAA) can help to disclose recent drinking after ethanol is no longer measurable in body fluids. A highly specific biomarker of hazardous drinking is CDT, a serum glycoprotein (transferrin), with a deficiency in its N‐linked glycosylation. Another widely acclaimed biomarker is PEth, an abnormal phospholipid synthesized in cell membranes when people drink excessively, having a long elimination half‐life (median ~6 days) during abstinence. Research on the subject of alcohol biomarkers has increased appreciably and is now an important area of drug testing and analysis.

show abstract

The impact of interlock installation on driving behavior and drinking behavior related to driving

Cited by 6 publications

References 13 publications

Changes in Alcohol Use and Drinking and Driving Outcomes From Before Arrest for Driving Under the Influence to After Interlock Removal

Changes in Alcohol Use and Drinking and Driving Outcomes From Before Arrest for Driving Under the Influence to After Interlock Removal

Understanding non‐installers of the ignition interlock device: A qualitative analysis

Brief history of the alcohol biomarkers CDT, EtG, EtS, 5‐HTOL, and PEth

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About