The impact of interlock installation on driving behavior and drinking behavior related to driving. (2nd October 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Nochajski, Thomas H.; Manning, Amy R.; Voas, Robert; Taylor, Eileen P.; Scherer, Michael; Romano, Eduardo
• Is Part Of: Traffic injury prevention. Volume 21:Number 7(2020)
• Page Start: 419
• Page End: 424
• Publication Date: 2020-10-02
• Subjects: DWI offenders -- interlock -- impaired driving -- drinking patterns -- driving patterns; Traffic safety -- Periodicals; Traffic accidents -- Periodicals; Wounds and injuries -- Prevention -- Periodicals; 363.125
• DOI: 10.1080/15389588.2020.1802020
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1538-9588

Abstract

Abstract: 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.