Breathalyzer devices in vehicles have drawbacks.

HERE are two compelling facts about ignition-interlock devices for preventing drunk driving. One is that these devices are highly effective, despite the logical possibilities for bypassing them. The second is that they are rarely installed in the cars of people who have been known to drive while intoxicated. A person who has been drinking might naturally think of fooling the device by persuading a sober person to start the engine, but that is not enough to subvert the system, because the device requires breath samples while the person drives — at random intervals of five minutes to an hour. (At least one company is also integrating cameras with the interlocks to photograph the driver when he provides a breath sample.) The unit keeps a log of all tests, and it is sealed so that any attempts at tampering can be detected. Ignition-interlock devices are not perfectly effective; a drunk can often borrow another car. But in one recent study they were found to reduce repeat drunk-driving offenses by 65 percent. If they were widely installed, the devices would save up to 750 lives a year, a recent National Highway Transportation Safety Administration report estimated. Judges often fail to order installation, even when the law requires it. Offenders routinely ignore orders to get interlocks. And in areas where the installation is voluntary, few offenders install them. In 2007, only about 146,000 interlocks were in use. Part of the problem is that many already overburdened courts may lack the resources to monitor compliance. Some states make driver’s license renewal conditional on the installation of an ignition interlock, but there is often inadequate integration between courts and motor-vehicle departments. Finally, the cost of the interlocks discourages people from complying with court orders. The price of renting and maintaining a unit is $70 to $100 a month, and installation can be another $70 to $175. These charges increase the offender’s temptation to simply drive without a license.


Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/opinion/31cook.html?_r=2