Truth vs. Myth: Ignition Interlock Devices
Many myths exist about ignition interlock and the entire breath testing industry. Unfortunately many of these are made based on misinformation. Surely if you have ever discussed breath testing in any form you have heard one, luckily for us these tend to be false, and just need some clarification.
Phrases from Lawrence Taylor's article published in BusinessWeek were included in a recent Lawrence Journal World article that I posted about. The LJW claimed that he (Lawrence Taylor) call them (ignition interlock devices), "inaccurate, easily circumvented and, because they require the person to give breath samples while driving, dangerous." Although as a defense attorney his job is to discredit all breath testing equipment in general he couldn't be further from the truth with this statement.
1. Inaccurate?
No. Our units are calibrated to within .005 on a monthly basis. These are Fuel Cell, alcohol specific units. Outdated Sensor Cell technology is to blame for many of the accuracy issues of years past, such as outside contaminants including cigarette smoke and car exhaust. Smart Start does not even offer a sensor cell (Taguchi cell) unit. Many states require that all interlock devices are Fuel Cell, alcohol specific, units.
2. Easily Circumvented?
No. Our units are equipped with several features which makes circumventing the device next to impossible. About a year ago a news station out of either New Mexico or Arizona (I will post the link to the story) had a unit from all the major interlock companies installed on their own vehicles and took them to a shop to try to circumvent each device. As you will see the Smart Start SSI-1000 was not able to be circumvented. Even by a team that was put together to do just that, prove that interlock devices were easily circumvented. Smart Start will also release the first positive identification unit early next year. (Smart Start 20/20) This device will make it possible to easily identify that the correct individual is the one taking the test.
3. Dangerous?
No. Most states require that ignition interlock give ample time for offenders to complete rolling tests. In Kansas we allow six minutes for each rolling retest to be completed. This period of time is designed to allow an individual time to pull over if their safety will be compromised by taking a rolling test. We urge individuals to do just that. I do though find it interesting that a safety argument arises when the outcome is guaranteeing that convicted multiple DUI offenders are sober when the join us on the highways.
I would believe that the REAL safety issue would be not requiring the installation of ignition interlock devices on such offenders.