INTERLOCK: Some Call Them Dangerous

Excerpts from:Oliver Prichard's-Sobriety devices drawing criticism

Jason Reall was heading down a rural Montgomery County road when he passed out and his car veered across the median, slamming into a tree. The 29-year-old Telford mechanic hadn't had a drop of alcohol. Instead, he crashed while blowing strenuously into an ignition interlock, a dashboard breath test that has become a widely used tool in America's DUI crackdown. With an interlock, a series of sober breath samples is needed not only to start a car but to continue operating it. Forty-five states and the District of Columbia require the sensors for those convicted of drunken driving, primarily repeat offenders. At least 50,000 drivers are supposed to be using them.The proliferation of interlocks, however, also has given rise to complaints, and litigation, over their safety. Reall is suing the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and LifeSafer Interlock Inc., of Cincinnati, one of seven interlock manufacturers. He contends that the device creates a hazardous driving distraction, and some experts agree.
"I wouldn't want to be driving down the road and have someone coming the other way trying to blow into a tube," said Clarence Ditlow of the Center for Auto Safety in Washington, a consumer group founded by Ralph Nader. "There are some real safety issues with regard to distraction that need to be looked at, to see if the benefits outweigh the potential risks." Interlocks are also being criticized for the forceful blowing - sometimes accompanied by humming - that they require. After a drunken-driving arrest last year, 79-year-old Georgia Alexander of Melbourne, Fla., was ordered to get an interlock. She drove 70 miles to have one installed, only to find herself stranded at the service center when she could not muster enough breath volume to start the car. Her lawyer wants the interlock order waived on the grounds that it violates her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. "They ask too much with this," Alexander said. "It's very impossible." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which helped develop the technical specifications for interlocks in the early 1990s, is aware that some drivers lack the necessary lung capacity, according to agency researcher Jim Frank.The driver must give a four- to six-second breath sample through a mouthpiece attached by wires to the unit.
Criticism of the device, however, usually centers on the "rolling retest." Within 10 minutes of the engine's turning over, a tone alerts the driver that he has four to six minutes to deliver another passing sample - otherwise, the car's horn will start honking and the lights will flash. The device demands subsequent retests at random. After police discovered that drunken drivers were using air compressors to fool the interlocks, some manufacturers retooled them to require simultaneous blowing and humming, or set sequences of long and short blows. Complicating the process, users are advised to sip water right before giving a breath sample.
Reall, a heavy smoker since age 12, says in his lawsuit in Montgomery County Court that he passed out after repeatedly huffing and humming into a sensor that rarely worked. "You had to hum while you're blowing into this thing as hard as you can, and of course you had to do it again and again and again," he said in a recent interview. "It was a piece of junk, like something you would buy off the toy rack at Wal-Mart."Reall's left hand was nearly severed in the crash, and he needs hip-replacement surgery. He has not been able to work, according to his lawyer, Matthew Wilkov, of Lansdale. "The ironic thing is that cell phones are considered a hazard while driving," Wilkov said, "but nobody's got a problem with this thing."Neither LifeSafer Interlock nor the company's lawyer responded to requests for comment. However, most interlock manufacturers point out that drivers have a window of several minutes to pull to the side of the road if they feel unsafe using the devices in traffic.

HOME