Ignition interlock devices reduce impaired driving by preventing repeat offences. Increasing public awareness about these programs can enhance their deterrent effect, making roads safer for everyone.
Key Takeaways
Did you know that if you are convicted of driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol, you face mandatory breathalyzer testing every time you drive after your driver’s license is reinstated? That is, the court will order you to install an ignition interlock device (IID) in your vehicle, which prevents you from starting it if the device detects alcohol on your breath.
Jeff Mass , DUI lawyer at MassTsang: “Ignition interlock devices serve as both a practical prevention tool and a strong deterrent against impaired driving.”
While the IID program is designed to serve as a deterrent to prevent impaired driving, those facing mandatory enrollment feel like it’s a punishment. The criminal defence lawyers of Mass Tsang see this firsthand, as many of their Greater Toronto Area clients express as much concern about potential IID program enrollment as they do the possibility of their driver’s license suspension. Indeed, subjects in a just-released study — Assessing the Deterrent Effects of Ignition Interlock Devices — indicated that mandatory IID program participation is as harsh as a 10-day jail term.
If you are unfamiliar with Ontario’s IID program , the province should probably do a better publicize its existence and how it impacts those convicted of DUI. With a primary goal of deterring people from driving while impaired, IID programs may only have a “substantial general psychological deterrent effect” if the public is informed about them, according to the study. Let’s take a closer look at IIDs and their role in reducing drunk driving in Canada.
Question: What role do ignition interlock devices play in reducing drunk driving in Canada?
Answer: Ignition interlock devices prevent vehicles from starting if alcohol is detected in the driver’s breath. These programs reduce impaired driving recidivism and serve as an effective deterrent, especially when coupled with public awareness campaigns.
In 1970, U.S. Secretary of Transportation John A. Volpe declared, “If someone could develop a technology to stop a drunk from driving, I would legislate it into existence.” Interestingly, researchers at the Borg Warner Corporation had just developed a working prototype of a device that would block a motor vehicle’s starting circuit if it detected alcohol in a breath sample. After some additional development work, the company patented the world’s first “inebriate inhibiter system” in 1971. Then, it continued to innovate the device, called the “ignition interlock system,” upon its introduction to government entities and investors in 1985.
In that year, a Denver, Colorado, court issued the first-known court-ordered installation of an IID in North America, and several states initiated IID pilot programs. Alberta became the first province in Canada to mandate IIDs for repeat impaired drivers in 1990. Ontario established its IID program in 2001 to target high-risk and repeat DUI offenders by requiring them to install IIDs in their vehicles as a driver’s license reinstatement condition after license suspension. In 2010, the province expanded mandatory IID program participation to cover drivers with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) above 0.08 or those refusing a breath test. This new provincial legislation also added a carrot-and-stick approach to its mandatory IID program by allowing some convicted DUI offenders to get a reduction in their driver’s license suspension if they successfully apply for the province’s reduced suspension program. Provincial legislators expanded the program again in 2018 by mandating IID program participation for those convicted of drug-impaired driving, and those given three or more warn range license suspensions for having BACs of 0.05-0.08 within 10 years.
Brian Brody , Criminal Lawyer at MassTsang: “Understanding the costs and implications of IID programs can make drivers think twice before driving impaired.”
Dozens of studies have been conducted on the impaired driving deterrent value of IID programs since the 1990s. These studies suggest IID programs help reduce impaired driving recidivism and the number of impaired driver-related motor vehicle accidents. However, most of these studies also suggest these positive effects are limited.
For example, a 2017 U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration research overview — Interlock Data Utilization — determined that numerous other studies found that IID programs reduced DUI recidivism at rates between 40 and 90 percent. However, the “major limitation on the effectiveness of the interlock is that, with rare exceptions, the benefits are limited to the period that the interlock is installed on the offenders’ vehicles.”
This sentiment can be found in most IID research reports. A 2003 report analyzing Alberta’s program determined that “participation in an interlock program significantly reduces the likelihood of subsequent [DUI convictions] at least so long as the interlock device is installed in the vehicle.” Other, more recent, reports concluded that “interlocks are effective in reducing re-arrest rates while they are installed in offenders’ vehicles” and “alcohol-related crashes decrease while interlocks are installed in vehicles.”
That said, a 2017 report assessing Nova Scotia’s IID program found a 90% reduction in recidivism among voluntary program participants, which only declined to 79% after they left the program. “With respect to general deterrence,” the report concluded, “there were temporary decreases in the numbers of alcohol-related charges (13.32%) and convictions (9.93%) and a small significant decrease in the number of fatal and serious injury-related crashes, following implementation of the program. The evidence suggests the interlock program was better at preventing harm due to alcohol-impaired driving than the alternative of not using the interlock program.”
| Feature | Description | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Mandatory for High-Risk Offenders | Required for those with BAC above 0.08 or refusing a breath test. | Reduces repeat offences. |
| Carrot-and-Stick Approach | Reduced suspension for early program participation. | Encourages compliance. |
| Applied to Drug-Impaired Drivers | Includes offenders convicted of drug-related impaired driving. | Broadens scope of prevention. |
| Warn Range Suspensions | Applied after 3+ warnings for BAC between 0.05-0.08. | Targets borderline offenders. |
The new study referenced at the beginning of this article did not specifically examine the level of public awareness about IID programs. Instead, researchers strived to assess the extent to which ignition interlock-related penalties “might affect general deterrence, that is, deterring people from driving after consuming alcohol prior to a DUI conviction.” Nevertheless, the study’s findings indicate a low level of IID program awareness among participants. For example, many study participants were unaware that IID programs typically include steep installation and maintenance fees. Additionally, DUI risk aversion among participants increased when informed about these fees to the point at which even a mere month-long IID term enhanced its deterrence value.
Robbie Tsang , DUI lawyer at MassTsang: “The effectiveness of IID programs is evident, but public awareness is key to maximizing their deterrent potential.”
The study’s key finding was that a mandatory IID penalty had the same deterrent effect as 10 days in jail, a $2,200 increase in fines, or a 20% increase in police DUI enforcement. Based on these findings, researchers determined that there is “considerable room for strengthening interlock penalties,” especially in jurisdictions that only have voluntary IID programs or only require its application to repeat or high-risk offenders. While the report does not outright state it, an IDD program’s ability to deter impaired driving seems like it could be considerably enhanced by boosting public awareness about this particular DUI penalty.
| Province | Recidivism Reduction (%) During Use | Post-Use Reduction (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Alberta | 40-90% | Not studied |
| Nova Scotia | 90% | 79% |
| Ontario | Varies | Not studied |
| Cost Element | Deterrence Impact |
|---|---|
| Installation Fees | Increased DUI risk aversion when made aware of costs. |
| Monthly Maintenance Fees | Additional deterrent effect during program duration. |
| Awareness Campaign | Enhances program’s psychological deterrent value. |
If you do not want to be saddled with the aggravation and cost of having to participate in Ontario’s IID program, don’t drive while impaired. If you failed to follow this advice, or are otherwise facing DUI-related charges in a Greater Toronto Area court, secure a skilled criminal defence with the experts at Mass Tsang by contacting us today for a free consultation.
