You are here: Home Resources Products
ALCOLOCKS FOR REPEAT OFFENDERS
SADD recommends alcohol interlocks for drink drivers
SADD recommends that these be fitted to the car of :
Alcolocks are used widely in Victoria State in Australia, Canada and in the USA in the recidivist (a convicted criminal who reoffends, especially repeatedly) drink drivers program. Studies in America have shown that Alcolocks can decrease repeat offences by 64%.
They are also used in many countries in Europe like Sweden,France,Spain etc.
In France and Spain all School Buses are fitted with Alcolocks.(Wouldn't it be fantastic if we did that in SA too?)
In Sweden Taxis proudly display signs that say "This Taxi is fitted with an Alcohol Interlock device."
They have been found to be very effective to prevent repeat drink driving and deaths and injuries.... Repeat offenders often kill,a nd they account for 30% of the deaths.
New Australian law designed to stop drink driving repeats. The introduction of the law makes it compulsory for anyone with a Blood Alcohol reading above 0.05 (Australian alcohol legal limit while driving) to pay for the installation of an alcohol interlock. Guilty drivers must fit the latest version of the technology, which includes a camera to ensure the indivuidual blowing into the interlock is the person driving
Read more here
(Why not buy an Alcolock for an 18 year old, to be proactive & perhaps save his/her life? R7,500 is less than most serious fender-benders!)
AN ALCOHOLIC's STORY: HOW HIS FAMILY DEALT WITH HIS REFUSING TREATMENT
A sons letter after getting advice from SADD about his father driving drunk all the time and endangering others lives.:(This was before Alcolocks were available) Well done for being proactive!
"I had him arrested over a year ago after a full day of heavy drinking .The police were told where to pick him up as he started to drive.
I then testified as to his addiction (after giving the public prosecutor the background) and his licence was suspended for 6mths and he received a R6000 fine.
He then resumed his old habits once the 6mths were up. Rather than repeat the process and put the public at risk in the interim, I removed his car.
He now walks everywhere and is still drinking heavily but will never drive a car again."
SADD respond to the National Road Safety Strategy Draft 6,and suggest the following be added and thought about under Safer Vehicles (Pillar 3) using modern technology.
Alcohol ignition interlocks. SADD suggest it is made compulsory for these to be fitted to public transport vehicles like buses, trucks and taxis.
Bus crash that claimed the lives of 11 ANC supporters in April. Read the full story here
SADD ask that it be made mandatory that driver with a BAC of 0.15g or more, and every repeat drink driving offender have an Alcohol Ignition Interlock fitted to their vehicle, if they are allowed to drive.
Additionally they should be monitored by NICRO and SANCA (Alcohol and Drug Centre)
It should be mandatory for every convicted drink driver who kills or seriously injures to have an Interlock fitted, once they are released from Jail, and they should be monitored by NICRO and SANCA (Alcohol and Drug Centre)
These Interlocks could be bought by the DoT, and hired out to the driver.(In Australia the cost is $5 daily) Offenders who by Law are not allowed to drink any alcohol should have “Alcohol Ankle bracelets fitted” and be monitored by a social worker from NICRO/SANCA.
How the Alcohol Interlock works
SADD feel more attention and research should be given to the Diversion Programs offered by NICRO that allows drink drivers to attend NICRO courses and not get criminal records.
SADD ask that if the Diversion programs are run that only offender who have a BAC of 0.10g or less, and no repeat offenders, should be allowed on these programs. In addition they should be registered on a Central Register, so that if they re-offend in another province within 10 years, they are not classed as First Time Offenders again, and allowed to join another Diversion Programs in that province.
Generally Diversion Programs are for “First time offenders”, but research shows that seldom are these drivers’ first time offenders; it is just the first time they have been caught!
"‘First-time’ offenders are rarely first-time drunk drivers," said a http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2014/feb/24/mothers-against-drunk-driving/madd-says-most-drunken-driving-deaths-caused-first/on Feb. 11, 2014.
"Conservative estimates show that a first-time convicted OWI offender has driven drunk at least 80 times prior to being arrested."
MADD continued: "According to the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, a majority of drunk driving deaths and injuries are caused by drunk driving offenders with no prior convictions."
There are several myths regarding ignition interlocks for first-time drunk driving offenders that need to be addressed to understand why this technology should be mandated for all DWI offenders. (Ref)http://www.ourthinkingaboutdrinking.com/opinions/busting-myths-ignition-interlocks-are-effective-for-first-time-drunk-drivers/) Prof Richard Roth.
Myth 1: First offenders have driven drunk only once before their arrest.
My research of drunk drivers at Victim Impact Panels shows that first offenders have driven drunk a median of 100 times before their first arrest. They are not first offenders; they are “first caught.”
Myth 2: First offenders are a negligible part of the drunk driving problem.
First offenders are the largest part of the drunk driving problem. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, they comprise over 60% of those arrested and up to 91% of those in fatal alcohol-impaired driving crashes.
Myth 3: First offenders are less likely to be re-arrested than subsequent offenders.
Data from New Mexico shows that first offenders have a re-arrest rate similar to that of subsequent offenders and eight times higher than the arrest rate of those with no priors.
Myth 4: License revocation is a more effective sanction than interlocks.
The re-arrest rate of interlocked first offenders is one fourth that of non-interlocked first offenders whose licenses are revoked.
Myth 5: Interlocks cost too much.
Offenders pay the cost of interlocks, which is less than a third of the economic benefit of lives saved, and crashes and injuries prevented. As opposed to costing too much, interlocks are actually cost effective.
Myth 6: Interlocks are not a fair penalty for DWI.
Even the majority of DWI offenders agree that they’re a fair penalty. Over 80% of 13,554 convicted DWI offenders agreed in anonymous surveys before DWI Victim Impact Panels.”