Debate over the effectiveness of interlock ignition devices rages on.
“From my perspective, it’s just bad policy,” said Sen. Jorge Luis Garcia, D-27. Garcia had pushed for more treatment and rehabilitation instead of tougher jail terms and penalties.
The new law is “more onerous” than beneficial to first-time DUI offenders, Garcia said.
“I guarantee you,” shot back Sen. Jim Waring, R-7, “these bills are going to save some lives, just by taking people off the road that might normally have been behind the wheel.”
Waring was referring to the new law and other measures passed by the Legislature over the years to curb drunk driving.
In fact, even before the ink of Gov. Janet Napolitano’s signature could dry, there were moves in the Legislature to repeal the interlock provision of S1029.
Casting ‘too wide a net?’
Concerned that the bill cast “too wide a net,” Rep. John Kavanagh, R-8, successfully offered an amendment to another bill that would have directly affected the newly signed law with the interlock provision. The author of the amended bill, Sen. Linda Gray, R-10, chose to let her measure die rather than risk modifying the signed bill.
“I have the same concerns now that I had when I convinced the House to reverse itself,” said Kavanagh, who said he prefers focusing more heavily on enforcement, such as the setting up of year-round checkpoints and assigning full-time officers to test squads, to combat drunk driving. His amendment would have required the interlock on first time offenders only if they figured in an accident that caused physical injury or property damage.
“If new data comes in which confirms the existing data that it doesn’t work, we’ll have to change it. It’s madness to continue with something which doesn’t work,” he said, adding the interlock works for extreme and repeat, non-extreme offenders, but not, he said citing studies, for first-time, non-extreme offenders.
“He doesn’t like this law and that’s what he wants to see happen,” Rep. David Schapira, D-17, said. “I think that it’s a shame that he is hoping for that. I think it’s a shame that he is not optimistic. I have a little bit more faith in the people of Arizona that we can make this positive change to protect our citizens.”
Waring said he would fight “tooth and nail” any move to water down or change the law. They should wait a few years to gauge its effects, he said. If after five years, for example, the measure has done nothing, then that’s probably the time to try a different course, he said.
Schapira said: “The reality is that that effort will not succeed. He already tried to do that once this session.”
What do the studies say about the effectiveness of the interlock provision in reducing recidivism?
A 2004 report by the California’s Department of Motor Vehicles sparked a controversy after it said that court-ordered interlock installation is not effective in reducing recidivism on first-time DUI offenders.
The American Beverage Institute (ABI) had seized on this and released a statement saying the study showed that the interlock had no “statistically significant effect in preventing subsequent drunk driving convictions but they increase their users’ general crash risk by up to 130 percent.”
The beverage group misrepresented the findings, the California DMV responded.
The DMV report’s lead author, David DeYoung, subsequently explained, “It’s true that our study showed that court orders to first offenders to install an ignition interlock device are not effective in reducing recidivism among that group — perhaps because many first offenders tend to be in denial, resent the devices and refuse to install them. But the ABI press release completely omits our finding that the devices can have a real effect on repeat offenders who are beginning to come to grips with their alcohol problem and who often find the mechanical devices to be helpful in keeping them out of cars when they’ve been drinking.
“In quoting our finding that DUI second offenders using the device have a 130 percent higher risk of a subsequent crash, ABI seems to imply that the device itself somehow increases the likelihood of a crash. That is not what we said,” DeYoung said. “Obviously, if someone who has previously been forbidden to drive is allowed to return legally to the roadways with an ignition interlock and a restricted driver license, their exposure to accidents increases, no matter how sober they are.”
New Mexico provides a different picture. Gov. Bill Richardson said in May 2006 that there was a 12 percent decline in the number of alcohol-related fatalities in 2005 compared to the year prior. Preliminary figures in 2005 also indicated a decrease in alcohol-related crashes, his statement said.
Richardson credited “bold actions” against drunk driving for the figures, including requiring offenders to install an interlock device and a statewide media campaign on the dangers of drunk driving.
Studies
Interlock lobbyist Alberto Gutier cited an article on the Traffic Injury Research Foundation Web site, which said research shows that interlocks “reduce recidivism by 45 to 90 percent” and the reductions “occur among first offenders and repeat offenders.” 
Can an interlock prevent drunk driving? Yes, according to the Arizona Department of Transportation. “The International Council on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety maintains that ignition interlocks, when combined with a comprehensive monitoring and service program, lead to 40 percent to 95 percent reduction in the rate of repeat drunk driving offenders as long as the device remains on the vehicle,” the agency said.