Vehicle Interlock Systems, or Breathalyzer are systems of alcohol-control installed into vehicles, with the purpose of prohibiting/controlling driver alcohol consumption. The goal of this invention was to reduce or eradicate the ability and/or frequency of drunk driving on the roads. A breath alcohol ignition interlock device (BIID or IID) is similar to a normal breathalyzer used by a law enforcer, but in this case it is installed onto a car's dashboard. Before starting the car, the driver must breathe into the device. If the analysis shows an amount over the legally admitted blood alcohol concentration (usually an amount of .02% or .04%) then the vehicle will not be able to start. This system is being used frequently in most states in the U.S. my mandate of the Federal Government.
[...] An Ohio study found a repeat offense rate lower for those using IID Based on the California pilot program, there is a 35 percent reduction in DWI repeat offenders, and from this it is estimated that there will be a reduction in demand for 175 prison beds and 1,400 jail beds. This could result in huge savings for the General Revenue Fund of the entire country as programs are implemented. Critics of IID systems There are also many criticisms of the IID system. [...]
[...] It also contains an open-ended configuration to thus assist fluid flow, and a mouth-piece projecting from the outer casing of the device to enable the user to exhale into an interior chamber. Most modern systems use an ethanol-specific fuel cell, (an electrochemical device where alcohol undergoes a chemical oxidation reaction which generates a subsequent electrical current) as the sensor device. This electrical current is what is then measured as an blood alcohol reading. This tends to be the most reliable BAC reading for the cost it imposes on the user. [...]
[...] Most states law concurs that: person who is restricted to the use of a vehicle equipped with an ignition interlock device and who tampers with the device or directs, authorizes, or requests another to tamper with the device, in order to circumvent the device by modifying, detaching, disconnecting, or otherwise disabling it, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. A person who knowingly assists another person who is restricted to the use of a vehicle equipped with an ignition interlock device to circumvent the device or to start and operate that vehicle in violation of a court order is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. [...]
[...] 199-205 (2003); “Alcohol Ignition Interlock Devices Position Paper,” International Council on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety (ICADTS), p (July Tashima, Helen N. and Clifford J. Helander, “1999 Annual Report of the California DUI Management Information System,” California Department of Motor Vehicles, pp (January 1999). 55-10-412. Additional penalties Ignition interlock devices. http://www.tntrafficsafety.org/htm/Laws/add412.htm 55-10-412. Additional penalties Ignition interlock devices. http://www.tntrafficsafety.org/htm/Laws/add412.htm Coben, Jeffrey, and Gregory Larkin, “Effectiveness of Ignition Interlock Devices in Reducing Drunk Driving RecidiIIDm,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Vol No. [...]
[...] Inventors claim that the eye sensor to breathalyzer relationship is recorded within the system, and that it “effectively obviates the participation of two individuals, one possibly intoxicated and one sober, from thwarting the objective of a vehicle interlock system.” Called the "rolling or running retest," the driver must re-test for alcohol level as they are driving. Many proponents of the system claim that this can prevent a friend from starting the car, then letting the drunk driver take over. That said, it has been proven, through accident investigations involving alcoholically intoxicated drivers, that it is not uncommon for a drunk driver to "trick" the system using the breath of a sober accomplice. [...]
using our reader.