{"id":2666,"date":"2017-11-11T15:37:46","date_gmt":"2017-11-11T20:37:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jol\/?p=2666"},"modified":"2021-12-04T13:00:19","modified_gmt":"2021-12-04T18:00:19","slug":"ignition-interlock-devices-drunk-driving","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jol\/2017\/11\/11\/ignition-interlock-devices-drunk-driving\/","title":{"rendered":"Don\u2019t Hold Your Breath: Furthering the Fight Against Drunken Driving Until Autonomous Vehicles Arrive"},"content":{"rendered":"

Don\u2019t Hold Your Breath: <\/strong>Furthering the Fight Against Drunken Driving Until Autonomous Vehicles Arrive<\/strong><\/p>\n

By Russell Spivak, JD \u201917[*]<\/a><\/p>\n

Interlocking Ignition Devices (IIDs) restrict a driver from turning on a car unless he or she passes a Breathalyzer examination. There is significant reason to think that promoting\u2014if not mandating\u2014the installation of such technologies in all cars, regardless of their drivers’ drinking habits or driving records, would lead to a substantial decline in auto accidents, along with a commensurate recapture of economic value. This Article explicates why this life-saving technology has not been more widely adopted already. It then offers a few potential levers by which federal or state governments can induce or compel the adoption of these life-saving devices within the confines of administrative law and the strictures of federalism. Finally, the Article briefly details a few pragmatic issues associated with inducing the adoption of IIDs, including 4th Amendment concerns and the auto insurance industry\u2019s response.<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n

It is possible that autonomous cars will be ubiquitous by the time today\u2019s tweens get behind the wheel.[1]<\/a> But to paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of human-operated cars\u2019 death may<\/em> be exaggerated.[2]<\/a> Until that day comes, however, we must continue to navigate the roads ourselves, and face the perils of drivers\u2019\u2014including our own\u2014human error. At the forefront of such perils is drunk driving. In spite of the tremendous work done by law enforcement and non-profit organizations\u2014not to mention the unsung heroes that steal their friends\u2019 keys\u2014who try to combat this danger, \u201c[i]n 2015, 10,265 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (29%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.\u201d[3]<\/a> In other words, \u201c28 people in the United States die[d] in motor vehicle crashes that involve an alcohol-impaired driver\u201d daily. On average, one such death occurred every 53 minutes.[4]<\/a> To put this number in perspective, firearms took only 20% more lives than drunk driving the year before.[5]<\/a> Yet the ongoing and fervent debate regarding gun control far outpaces its drunk driving equivalent.<\/p>\n

The next logical question must be: are we really putting a proportional amount of effort and legislative focus into staving off drunk driving-related deaths? It seems unlikely. This article seeks to begin rectifying that shortfall, bridging the gap between today\u2019s reality and tomorrow\u2019s autonomous protections.<\/p>\n

Luckily, this article is not alone in its pursuit of interim solutions. In 2008, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety began researching<\/p>\n

potential in-vehicle approaches to the problem of alcohol-impaired driving. . . . This cooperative research partnership, known as the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety (DADSS) Program . . . is developing non-intrusive technologies that could prevent the vehicle from being driven when the device registers that the driver\u2019s blood alcohol concentration (BAC) exceeds the legal limit[.][6]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

After investing $2.25 million to research promising non-intrusive technologies,[7]<\/a> DADSS zeroed in on \u201ctwo different technologies for vehicle integration: a breath-based system and a touch-based system.\u201d[8]<\/a> The former is essentially an ambient breathalyzer: it reads alcohol levels in the driver\u2019s exhaled air without requiring him to blow into a specific tube. The latter measures BAC by detecting alcohol just below the surface of one\u2019s skin via infrared light.[9]<\/a> \u201cThe National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in the U.S. is hoping the new equipment will be ready for roll-out by 2020.\u201d[10]<\/a> Recent technological advances like the above offer renewed hope for exceptional accuracy as well as more space-efficient machinery.[11]<\/a> Furthermore, they are designed to be more proactive in avoiding drunk driving and saving lives. Both of these technologies are part of the larger family of Interlocking Ignition Devices (IIDs), which prevent the operator of a car from starting the car if he or she fails a breathalyzer test.<\/p>\n

IIDs are not new: they were developed in the latter half of the 20th century. They have gained near-universal favorability across the country[12]<\/a>: all 50 states and Washington, D.C. use IIDs in some fashion when convicted DUI drivers seek to return to the roads.[13]<\/a> Other countries have followed suit.[14]<\/a><\/p>\n

It is time to rebrand this technology not as solely punitive, but as preventive<\/em>. While the NHTSA Report expressed skepticism about the current<\/em> feasibility of installing IID technology, it nevertheless made clear that the IID is the future of auto safety.[15]<\/a> What is more, with proper forethought, solutions to compel IIDs\u2019 uptake can stay current with new technology: states need only update their statutes defining IIDs to include the new devices. Scientists who have studied the effects of IID installation have recommended putting such devices in newly manufactured cars.[16]<\/a><\/p>\n

So here\u2019s the $64,000 question: how can governments pave the way for the universal adoption of IIDs? This Article explores just that.<\/p>\n

To begin, the Article looks at a history of drunk driving in the United States and early efforts to combat this all-too-preventable killer. Section II zeroes in on drunk driving today: its demographics and, particularly, its costs. Section III explains IIDs in more detail, from their technological underpinnings to their use today. Section IV details strategies for implementation within and without the tax code. Section V denotes certain additional considerations that may come to bear on the debate. Finally, the article concludes by recommending particular strategies to incentivize adoption of IIDs, thereby saving lives.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

I. A Brief History of Drunk Driving and Responses Thereto<\/strong><\/p>\n

In 1906, New Jersey became the first state in the Union to enact legislation outlawing drunk driving.[17]<\/a> Its violation\u2014which did not articulate a specific blood alcohol content (BAC)[18]<\/a>\u2014was punishable by $500 or potential jail time.[19]<\/a> This was typical of early drunk driving laws, which \u201cmade it illegal to drive while intoxicated but did not provide a statistical definition of intoxication. As a result, prosecutors normally had to present testimony that the defendant was showing outward signs of intoxication, like imbalance or slurred speech.\u201d[20]<\/a><\/p>\n

In the 1930s, as driving\u2019s popularity increased and drunk driving became an increasingly pressing issue, \u201ca number of medical men and other scientists in this country became intensely interested in the problem of the drinking driver upon our highways and the use of chemical tests to determine alcoholic influence as one of the means of coping with it.\u201d[21]<\/a><\/p>\n

It was not until 1938, however, that two national institutions sought to better codify what it meant to operate under the influence of alcohol. The American Medical Association teamed up with the National Safety Council to issue a report in an effort to make DUI-related laws more uniform. The report stated that:<\/p>\n

\n