Californians Want Ignition Interlock Devices To Be Used: Lives Saved
A random survey sent to 1,200 San Diego County residents indicated strong support for the installation and use of ignition interlock devices for drunk drivers. This public opinion survey was conducted by the California Institute of Transportation Safety, a traffic safety research and education institute located in San Diego State University. Data was gathered from April to May 2004 and had a 21% response rate. The study revealed that:
- 90% of the respondents supported the use of the ignition interlock device. 94% supported it for all repeat drunk drivers with an average time of installation of 22.3 months.
- 92% of the respondents felt that judges should be forced to support laws that are in place concerning the device.
- When asked what should happen to individuals who failed to install the device when ordered to do so by the courts, 25% reported they should have to serve time in jail. 17% felt that they should lose their right to drive permanently.
- Over half of the respondents reported knowing someone who had received a DUI, and 32% of them knew someone who had been killed or injured by a drunk driver.
- When asked how many drivers who had their driver's license suspended for drunk driving would still drive illegally, the majority chose 80%.
Methodology:
The California Institute for Transportation Safety mailed 1,200 randomly generated addresses to persons living in San Diego County asking them about their opinions concerning use of the ignition interlock device in California. These surveys were mailed out April 12- 16, 2004 and were returned within three weeks of mailing.
Capsule Summary:
Even though just over half (55%) had heard of the device prior to the survey, it was supported by a huge majority of those who returned the survey (90%). Currently, the laws in the California courts are not being followed by all of the judges and 92% of the respondents felt that judges should in fact be required to enforce the laws. As more of the population of California becomes aware of the interlock option, and it's potential for saving lives, legislators will feel pressure from their constituents to aid in enforcing its use. Over half (58%) of the respondents even supported the use of the device for first time drunk drivers indicating a belief in addressing the issue before it becomes a repeat habit.
Executive Summary:
The Respondents: The respondents were generated from random addressed provided by an outside company that included all zip codes within San Diego County. Respondents were asked to complete the survey and return it within a two-week time period. The respondents were almost exactly half female and half male, reported an average age of 51, and were primarily white (65%). The use of random addresses is important in that it allows for the information to be spread to a wide variety of persons living within the area, and captures a better feel for the population. The surveys were anonymous and all confidentiality was maintained to allow participants a sense of freedom in answering the questions with out fear of censure or negative feedback.
Participants were also asked to report their involvement with drunk drivers. Over half of the respondents reported that they knew someone who had received a DUI (65.2%). Only 4.7% said that they themselves had received a DUI. Almost a third (32% reported that they knew someone who had been killed or injured by a drunk driver, 2.4% said they themselves had been injured by a drunk driver.
The Law:
It is important to note that the overwhelming majority of respondents indicated strong support for judges to follow established laws. This held true even for some individuals who did not support the device per se, but still felt if the law was in place it should be supported by the courts.
The respondents were also concerned that persons who had been ordered by the court to install the device were failing to do so. Many of them felt that these individuals should be punished, and often times with a serious fine and/or jail time on top of an extended license suspension.
Participants were also asked if they felt that it would be acceptable to reduce the length of a drunk driver's license suspension if they only drove vehicles with the device on them. The responses were mixed, indicating that some respondents did not trust these drivers to only drive a device installed vehicle. Even so, 65% reported that they felt drunk drivers who only drove ignition interlock installed vehicles should be given shorter suspensions.
Repeat Offenders:
Almost all of the respondents indicated that they felt the Interlock Device should be required for all repeat drunk drivers (93.7%), and the average time they indicated it should be kept on was 22.29 months. Some said these drivers should never be allowed to operate a vehicle without an Interlock device (13.8%) reporting "forever" when asked for a length of time.
First Time Offenders:
The numbers were more divided for first time drunk driver offenders, however, 57.7% still felt that the device should be mandatory as a condition of license reinstatement. The average time for required installation was lower for the first time offenders, with 11.61 months.
