effective and ineffective laws to reduce drunk driving

Effective and Ineffective LawsTo Reduce Drunk Driving

Richard Roth, PhDExecutive Director, Impact DWI

Citizen Lobbyist and Research Consultant

Supported by PIRE, NHTSA, RWJ, and NM TSB

[email protected], 471-4764, www.impactdwi.org

Houston Traffic Safety Conference. Nov. 16, 2006

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.impactdwi.org/

Richard Roth Houston Traffic Safety Conference, November 2006

2

Crime and PunishmentAdam, Benito, and Charlie drink a 6-pack

at a party and decide to drive home.

• Adam gets home safely.

• Benito is arrested for DWI

• Charlie kills someone

• What is the Punishment?

• Jail for Charlie; Fines for Benito; Zip for Adam

• What is the Crime?

• Deciding to drive after drinking…Same for all


3

Distribution of DWI Offenders by Priors

•To Reduce Recidivism, You cannot ignore First Offenders

•To Reduce First Offenders, General Deterrence & Prevention

NM DWI Arrests in 2005

1st, 10788, 58%2nd, 3659, 20%

3rd, 1817, 10%

4th, 920, 5%

5+, 1206, 7%


4

Distribution of Offenders by Priors and Alcohol Problems

A small (N~70) Anonymous Survey of DWI Offenders

I Am An Alcoholic (N=61)

62%

38%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

No Yes

Alcohol Is A Problem For Me (N=65)

48%52%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

No Yes

Drove After Drinking? (N=73)

44%

56%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

<100 Times 100 or More

Average = 606 timesAUDIT: A score of 8 or more indicates

a strong likelihood of hazardous or harmful alcohol consumption ( N=69)

59%

41%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Less than 8 = No 8 or more = Yes


5

NM 2004 Severe Alcohol Crash RatesPlot by Dick Roth, Nov 16, 2005

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Over64

60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 21-24 under21

Cra

sh

es

pe

r 1

00

0 D

riv

ers

AGE DISTRIBUTION


6

GOAL ?

• Reduce Drinking

• Reduce Alcoholism

• Punish Offenders

• Change Behavior of Offenders

• Reduce Drunk Driving


7

Goal: To Reduce Drunk Driving

• Effective

• Cost Effective

• Fair

My Criteria For What to Do To Achieve the Goal


8

Effective and Ineffective Laws

• Hard License Revocation

• Long Jail Sentences

• Treatment for All Subsequent Offenders

• Victim Impact Panels

• Interlocks for All DWI Offenders


9

What Can We DoTo Reduce Drunk Driving

• Legislation

• Regulation

• Taxation

• Prevention

• Enforcement

• Adjudication

• Sanctions

• Treatment

My Focus In This Talk


10

An Ignition Interlock is anElectronic Probation Officer

• Dedicated Probation Officer in Front Seat

• On duty 24 hours per day

• Tests and Records daily BAC’s

• Allows only Alcohol-Free Persons to Drive.

• Reports All Violations to the Court

• Costs Offender only $2.30 per day. (1 less drink per day)


11

Interlocks are Effective, Cost-Effective and Fair

• Interlocks reduce DWI re-arrests by 40-90%• They reduce the economic impact of drunk driving

by $3 to $7 for every $1 of cost.• Interlocks are perceived as a fair sanction by 85%

of over 4000 offenders surveyed.

• ..But they only work if… • you get them installed.


12

Currently Installed Interlocks by State2006 Data from 8 of 9 Interlock Distributors; Plot by Dick Roth, June 10, 2006

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000T

exas

Was

hin

gto

n

No

rth

Car

olin

a

Cal

ifo

rnia

Flo

rid

a

New

Mex

ico

Iow

a

Mar

ylan

d

Mic

hig

an

Ari

zon

a

Vir

gin

ia

Co

lora

do

Illin

ois

Pen

nsy

lvan

ia

Oh

io

Mis

sou

ri

Okl

aho

ma

Geo

rgia

Ark

ansa

s

Ore

go

n

Uta

h

Wis

con

sin

Lo

uis

ian

a

New

Yo

rk

Wes

t V

irg

inia

All

Oth

er S

tate

s

Revised June 15, 2006

Note:Still missing data from one distributor.

15,000


13

Currently-Installed Interlocks per Million Residents by State2006 Data from 8 of 9 US Interlock Distributors; Plot by Dick Roth June 15,2006

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500N

ew M

exic

o

Iow

a

Was

hin

gto

n

Mar

ylan

d

No

rth

Car

olin

a

Ari

zon

a

Co

lora

do

Okl

aho

ma

Vir

gin

ia

Uta

h

Ark

ansa

s

Mic

hig

an

Wes

t V

irg

inia

Tex

as

Ore

go

n

Mis

sou

ri

Idah

o

Flo

rid

a

So

uth

Dak

ota

Del

awar

e

Illin

ois

Oh

io

Pen

nsy

lvan

ia

Geo

rgia

Lo

uis

ian

a

Missing data from one distributor


14

Interlocks installed per Alcohol Involved FatalityInterlock data from 8 of 9 Interlock Providers 2006;

2004 Fatality data from NHTSA FARS.Plot by Dick Roth, Revised June 15, 2006

3732

2115 14

11 11 10 9 8

05

10152025303540

Iow

a

Wa

sh

ing

ton

Ne

wM

ex

ico

Uta

h

Ma

ryla

nd

No

rth

Ca

roli

na

Co

lora

do

Vir

gin

ia

Mic

hig

an

Ari

zon

a

Missing data from one distributor

Texas with all distributors= 9.1


15

Currently-Installed Interlocks per Capita.Data from 9 providers; Plot by Dick Roth, Nov 2006

660342

2737

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

New Mexico Texas U.S.

Inte

rlo

ck

s p

er

Mill

ion

Po

pu

lati

on


16

Motivation Continuum For DWI Offenders to Install Interlocks

Under Existing and Possible Laws

From Incentives to Mandates

From Carrots to Sticks

From Legal Driving Privileges

To Judicial Mandates


17

New Mexico Interlock Laws• 1999 Optional for 2nd and 3rd DWI.

• 2002 Mandatory for all Aggravated and Subsequent DWI. Indigent Fund

• 2003 Ignition Interlock License Act: ….an alternative to revocation.

• 2005 Mandatory Interlocks for all DWIs: 1yr for 1st ; 2 for 2nd ; 3 for 3rd ; Lifetime for 4+


18

Ignition Interlock Installation Rates Under Various Laws in NM

0

10002000

30004000

5000

60007000

8000

OptionalJudicial

Sanction for2nd and 3rd

DWI

Mandatoryfor 1st Agand Above

InterlockLicenseAvailable

Mandatoryfor All DWIConvictions

DWIConvictions

Inst

alla

tio

n R

ate

(per

yea

r) EstimateMy EstimateLast year

At Annecy5688

So Far


19

Interlock Installation Rate is increasing.

The Number of Currently-Installed Interlocks is Increasing.

Highest in World

NM DWI Arrests, Convictions, and Interlock Installationsin the year after June 17, 2005,

when interlocks became mandatory for all convicted DWIs.

5,038

11,789

17,877

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

Arrests Convictions Interlocks Installed

Interlocks Installed per Arrest = 0.28Interlocks Installed per Conviction = 0.43

TEXAS

0.14


20

Interlocks in New Mexico

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07

Installed Removed Current


21

Recidivism of Mandated Interlocked Offenders vs Comparison Group by Conviction Number

6.4%

8.1% 8.3%

2.6%3.2% 3.6%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

C# = 1 C# = 2 C# = 3

DWI Convictions Prior to Installation

Rea

rres

ted

wit

hin

1 y

ear

Comparison Groups Interlocked Groups

Interlocks are Effective with Court Mandated Offenders


22

Recidivism of 58779 NM DWI Offenders

Before and After First Mandatory Interlock Law

Time after Conviction (years)

2.01.51.0.50.0

On

e M

inu

s C

um

Su

rviv

al

.16

.14

.12

.10

.08

.06

.04

.02

0.00

Year of Conv

2001-2

2003-5

8.0% Before

6.7% After

A 16% Reduction

Statewide recidivism decreased when Interlocks became mandatory.


23

Recidivism of 4855 SF County DWI Offenders

Before and After First Mandatory Interlock Law

Time after Conviction (years)

2.01.51.0.50.0

Fra

ctio

n R

ea

rre

ste

d f

or

DW

I

.16

.14

.12

.10

.08

.06

.04

.02

0.00

Year of Conv

2001-2

2003-5

8.7% Before

6.2% After

A 29% ReductionBefore

After


24

Goals

• Get Interlocks into the vehicles of all those arrested for DWI as soon as possible after arrest.

• Keep interlocks installed until there is evidence of Alcohol Free Driving for a year.


25

Legislative Proposals

1. On Arrest: Immobilization or Interlock (DWI offenders are a flight risk and a danger to the public and the vehicle is hazard to the public)

2. On Conviction: Mandate interlock or sobrieter, paid for by offender

3. On Attempts to Circumvent Interlock: Mandate Vehicle Forfeiture


26

Recommendations1. Immobilization or Interlock between DWI

arrest and adjudication. 2. Mandatory Interlock for at least one year

for all convicted offenders with immobilization as the only alternative.

3. Compliance Based Removal. Requirement: No recorded BAC > .05 by any driver for a year.

4. Interlock License as an Alternative to Revocation.

5. An Indigent Fund with objective standards.


27

Innovative Interlock Laws in NM

effective and ineffective laws to reduce drunk driving

Documents

distribution of dwi

distribution of offenders

dwi nm

severe alcohol crash

benito zip

alcohol problemsa small

dick roth

charlie fines