Raub Richard A, Lucke Roy E, Wark Richard I
Northwestern University Center for Public Safety, Evanston, Illinois 60208, USA.
Traffic Inj Prev. 2003 Sep;4(3):199-205. doi: 10.1080/15389580309873.
This study compares the recidivism rates of two groups of Illinois drivers who had their driver's licenses revoked for alcohol-impaired driving and who received restricted driving permits. Drivers in both groups had more than two driving under the influence (DUI) actions against their record within 5 years or were classed as level III alcohol dependents. Drivers in one group were required to install breath alcohol ignition interlock devices in their vehicles and drivers in the other group were not. The research found that drivers with the interlock were one-fifth as likely to be arrested for DUI during the 1 year the device was installed as the comparison group, which did not have the device. However, once the ignition interlock was removed, drivers in this group rapidly returned to DUI arrest rates similar to those in the comparison group. These findings echo previous literature. Additionally, the study showed that this voluntary program in Illinois reached only 16% of the drivers who met the requirements for installing the interlock device. Finally, this study found that individuals who were removed from the interlock program and returned to revoked status continued to drive. Within 3 years, approximately 50% of this latter group were involved in a crash or were arrested for DUI or with an invalid driver's license. Conclusions drawn from the study suggest that the breath alcohol ignition interlock device is effective in preventing continued driving while impaired. However, the large-scale effectiveness of the device is limited since most of the drivers eligible for the device do not have it installed. To have a significant impact, the interlock device must represent a better alternative to drivers whose licenses were suspended or revoked because of alcohol arrests compared to remaining on revoked status without having the device installed. Finally the research suggests that, given the rapid return to predevice recidivism, the devices should remain installed until drivers can demonstrate an extended period of being alcohol free.
本研究比较了伊利诺伊州两组司机的累犯率。这两组司机的驾照均因酒驾被吊销，并获得了受限驾驶许可。两组司机在5年内都有超过两次的酒后驾车（DUI）记录，或者被归类为三级酒精依赖者。一组司机被要求在其车辆中安装酒精呼吸点火联锁装置，另一组司机则不需要。研究发现，在安装该装置的1年时间里，安装联锁装置的司机因酒驾被捕的可能性是未安装该装置的对照组的五分之一。然而，一旦拆除点火联锁装置，该组司机的酒驾被捕率迅速回升至与对照组相似的水平。这些发现与先前的文献一致。此外，该研究表明，伊利诺伊州的这个自愿项目只覆盖了符合安装联锁装置要求的司机中的16%。最后，该研究发现，那些被从联锁项目中除名并恢复吊销状态的人仍在继续开车。在3年内，后一组中约50%的人发生了事故，或者因酒驾或驾照无效而被捕。该研究得出的结论表明，酒精呼吸点火联锁装置在防止酒驾时继续驾驶方面是有效的。然而，该装置的大规模有效性有限，因为大多数符合条件的司机并未安装该装置。要产生重大影响，与在未安装该装置的情况下保持吊销状态相比，联锁装置必须为那些因酒驾被吊销或暂扣驾照的司机提供更好的选择。最后，研究表明，鉴于累犯率迅速恢复到安装装置前的水平，这些装置应一直安装，直到司机能够证明自己有很长一段时间没有饮酒。
