Step 5: Combining the national estimates to a European estimate
3 International experience with alcohol interlocks
3.2 Barriers for implementation of alcohol interlock programmes
Several factors that are delaying or preventing EU alcohol interlock implementation will have to be removed in the years to come. The most important ones are legal and bureaucratic barriers. Some striking examples of legal barriers can be found in the Netherlands. A couple of months before the implementation of the mandatory alcohol interlock program, parliament adopted a law which made license revocation inevitable for recidivists with a BAC over 1.3 g/L. Furthermore, first offenders with a BAC over 1.8 g/L were excluded from direct participation in the alcohol interlock program. These offenders have to undergo a medical examination by a psychiatrist in order to find out whether they are fit-to-drive or not. If the psychiatrist decides a person is not fit-to-drive (because he is alcohol-dependent), his driver’s license will be revoked. In practice, more than 75% of these examinations result in the verdict “not fit-to-drive”.
The Dutch government’s decision was based on an assertion by the Dutch Association for Psychiatry (NVvP), not substantiated by facts however, that an alcohol-dependent driver with an alcohol interlock-installed car would be a threat for road safety because of the withdrawal symptoms associated with sobriety. According to NVvP, the alcohol interlock would provoke multiple attempts to stay sober during short periods, thus aggravating withdrawal symptoms with every sober period. In order to check this assertion, the Dutch government commissioned two different studies into this subject. Both studies came to the same conclusion: there is no evidence at all for the psychiatrists’ assertion (Weingart et al., 2010; Nickel, 2010). Nickel’s main conclusions were:
1. the total effect on road safety under the condition of an Alcohol Interlock Programme including alcohol addicted drivers is substantial and exceeds that of other measures;
Evaluation of the Swedish offender programme even produced strong indications of a beneficial health effect. Swedish programme participants, in vast majority diagnosed as problem drinker or alcohol-addicted, needed significantly less hospital care than before entering the program; and also less than a control group with revoked licenses. Furthermore, their number of sick leave days were significantly lower (Bjerre et al., 2007).
In spite of the conclusions of the aforementioned studies, the Dutch government not only decided to maintain the existing limit for a medical examination, but to even lower it from 2.1 to 1.8 g/L BAC. The result was a strong devaluation of the alcohol interlock programme: offenders who need the alcohol interlock programme most are not eligible to participate.
But not only in the Netherlands legal barriers prevent effective implementation of an alcohol interlock programme for drink-driving offenders. Probably all EU countries will have to amend their drink-driving laws in order to make these programmes possible.
Also other bureaucratic issues can prevent drivers from entering into an alcohol interlock
programme. For example in Belgium, problems have been reported with the transfer of court orders for alcohol interlocks to convicted drivers. Furthermore, Belgian judges must evaluate when interlock is appropriate. Due to cost- and length-considerations interlocks will probably rarely be imposed in the first years to come.7
It is unlikely, however, that this problem could be solved by making the alcohol interlock programme part of the criminal justice system, as is shown by experiences in the USA. For instance, a survey among Utah judges revealed that only 34% of all judges always or regularly sentenced felony DUI offenders to an ignition interlock as a condition of probation. In order to be following the law, this percentage should have been one hundred (Christenson & Haddon, 2004).
In the Netherlands a barrier results from the fact that the police has to inform the Dutch Driving Test Organization CBR about all arrested drinking drivers who are eligible for some kind of
administrative measure (driver improvement program, medical examination of fitness-to-drive or alcohol interlock program). According to oral personal communication by a CBR representative, an estimated 50% of eligible drivers are not communicated to CBR by the police. This may be due to the workload of the police and/or the priority the police has to give to the criminal justice system (rather than to administrative procedures).
Apart from legislative problems, technical problems may prevent future installation of alcohol interlocks in offenders’ cars. This is due to the fact that vehicle technology is developing more and more into electronically controlled vehicle systems using data bus communication. As a result, after-market installation of alcohol interlocks becomes much more difficult and it is envisaged that today’s conventional installation method will no longer be possible in the near future (Lagois, 2012). In order to solve this problem, cooperation between the automotive industry and alcohol interlock manufacturers is required.
Finally, also practical issues regarding cost, maintenance and monitoring require much attention when implementing an alcohol interlock programme for drink-driving offenders (Voas & Marques, 2003). Amongst other evaluations of alcohol interlock programme pilots in Belgium and Sweden have indicated that cost (and duration) for participation in an alcohol interlock programme are too high, in particular compared to traditional sanctions.
7
Silverans, P. (2012) Implementation challenges in Belgium Alcohol interlock symposium 13 Helsinki, Finland, September 9-11 2012.