Given the serious problem presented by drunk driving, there was early interest in the development of a device that would prevent an intoxicated individual from driving. One such unit available in the 1960s was the Quick Key, which was a reaction time test that required the potential driver to rapidly turn the ignition key in response to an auditory signal. The first vehicle with a breath test ignition interlock was demonstrated to NHTSA in 1970. That year, I presented the first scientific paper on the interlock concept to the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association. However, it required almost 20 years for the industry to develop a practical breath test unit that effectively resisted circumvention with bogus air samples or tampering with the unit’s connection to the vehicle. Once the unit began to be used with DUI offenders by the courts in the 1990s, my colleagues and I began a series of research studies, which, in agreement with other studies, demonstrated that while offenders were on the interlock recidivism is reduced by about two-thirds, but that following removal, recidivism returns to the pre-installation level. In addition, our research demonstrated (1) that offenders adapted to the units by “learning” to avoid lockouts, which prevented their starting their vehicles, and (2) that failure to adapt as indicated by the number of lockouts predicted future recidivism once the interlock was removed. This has led states to adopt laws providing for the extension of time on the interlock for offenders who have high numbers of lockouts. In addition, we have shown that offenders resist installing the units but will do so if the alternative is less desirable. This has led to legislation mandating interlocks, which allows the court to impose a more severe sanction if the offender refuses an interlock. Finally, our demonstration that offenders learn to adapt to the interlock and that educational and treatment programs have promise to increase adaptation and reduce future recidivism has encouraged some states, such as Florida and Colorado, to build treatment programs into their interlock systems.

Voas, R. B., Marques, P. R., Tippetts, A. S., & Beirness, D. J. (1999). The Alberta Interlock Program: The evaluation of a province-wide program on DUI recidivism. Addiction, 94(12), 1849-1859.

Voas, R. B., Blackman, K. O., Tippetts, A. S., & Marques, P. R. (2002). Evaluation of a program to motivate impaired driving offenders to install ignition interlocks. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 34(4), 449-455.

Marques, P. R., Voas, R. B., & Tippetts, A. S. (2003). Behavioral measures of drinking: Patterns in the interlock record. Addiction, 98(Suppl 2), 13-19.

Elder, R.W., Voas, R., Beirness, D., Shults, R.A., Sleet, D.A., Nichols, J.L., . . . Task Force on Community Preventive Services. (2011). Effectiveness of ignition interlocks for preventing alcohol-related crashes: A Community Guide systematic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 40(3), 362-376.

A key issue for developing safety policies to reduce alcohol-related crashes is to determine their prevalence and the driver, vehicle, and environmental risk factors associated with their occurrence. Determining risk involves the ability to maintain a record of crash events and the development of appropriate exposure data for evaluating the role of alcohol in the event. The two major federal programs that provide the basis for making such estimates at the national level are the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and decadal National Roadside Surveys (NRS). During my time at the National Highway Safety Administration (NHTSA) in various positions from 1968 to 1982, I was able to contribute to the development of both programs. I initiated the NRS program by preparing the plan and managing the contract for the first NRS conducted in 1973, which has been followed by national surveys in 1986, 1996 (for which I was Principal Investigator [PI]), 2007, and 2013 (the last two conducted by John Lacey, my co-staff member at PIRE). I also had a role in the development of the FARS. The FARS was created in response to the need for a national crash record system to evaluate the 35 Alcohol Safety Action Projects (ASAPs) established across the country—for which I headed the design team and was the program evaluator. In addition to the opportunity to contribute to the definition of the data items collected, I was able to call attention to the under reporting of driver BAC data and persuade NHTSA to develop a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) imputation system that more accurately reflects the extent of the national alcohol-related crash problem. Together the FARS and the NRS have provided a record of the nation’s progress in reducing alcohol-related crashes and a regular method of determining the relative risk of crash involvement as a function of age, gender, and ethnicity, and determining change over time. Two recent studies have explored that issue.

Zador, P. L., Krawchuk, S. A., & Voas, R. B. (2000). Alcohol-related relative risk of driver fatalities and driver involvement in fatal crashes in relation to driver age and gender: An update using 1996 data. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 61(3), 387-395.

Voas, R. B., Tippetts, A. S., Romano, E., Fisher, D. A., & Kelley-Baker, T. (2007). Alcohol involvement in fatal crashes under three crash exposure measures. Traffic Injury Prevention, 8(2), 107-114.

Voas, R. B., Romano, E., & Peck, R. (2009). Validity of surrogate measures of alcohol involvement when applied to nonfatal crashes. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 41(3), 522-530. PMCID: PMC2776062

Voas, R. B., Torres, P., Romano, E., & Lacey, J. H. (2012). Alcohol-related risk of driver fatalities: An update using 2007 data. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 73(3), 341-350. PMCID: PMC3316710.

When NHTSA was founded in 1968, it was estimated (Borkenstein) that the typical police officer made only one driving under the influence (DUI) arrest per year and only one in 2,000 drunk trips resulted in a DUI arrest. Thus a major focus of our design for the national ASAP program was to find methods for strengthening enforcement. Two approaches were tested, establishing dedicated DUI patrols made up of officers with the best records for making arrests, who were assigned to dedicated patrols on weekend evenings when, based on FARS and NRS data, most high BAC drivers were on the road and most likely to be crash-involved. This system was highly successful—as few as a half dozen officers on special patrols produced as many arrests as the rest of a several hundred officer police force. This has become the standard procedure implemented by most police departments today. A second approach which built on deterrence theory in which all drivers were stopped and interviewed at checkpoints was shown to be effective in creating deterrence through raising the perception of the probability of arrest, but it never found favor with the police and is used by only a few departments today despite a continuing effort by NHTSA to promote its use. Aside from my evaluation of the ASAP program, I have been the PI on a number of the later evaluations of enforcement programs and published articles on the effectiveness of both types of DUI enforcement programs.

Levy, P., Voas, R. B., Johnson, P., & Klein, T. (1977). Evaluation of the ASAPs. Journal of Safety Research, 10, 162-176.

Voas, R. B., & Hause, J. M. (1987). Deterring the drinking driver: The Stockton experience. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 19(2), 81-90.

Voas, R. B., Holder, H. D., & Gruenewald, P. J. (1997). The effect of drinking and driving interventions on alcohol-involved traffic crashes within a comprehensive community trial. Addiction, 92(Supplement 2), S221-S236.

Voas, R. B. (2008). A new look at NHTSA's evaluation of the 1984 Charlottesville Sobriety Checkpoint Program: Implications for current checkpoint Issues. Traffic Injury Prevention, 9(1), 22-30.

The development of the Borkenstein Breathalyzer, which allowed an officer in a police station to conduct an evidential breath test for BAC rather than having to collect a blood or urine sample to be sent to a laboratory, was a major factor in improving the efficiency of the arrest process. The further step of providing the individual office with a breath test device that could be used on the side of the road as part of the apprehension process has also contributed to the accuracy and efficiency of the arrest process. Prior to 1970, field testing for BAC was limited to a saliva test system using a thermometer type of device that was not very accurate. That year, I brought into the U.S. the first pocket-sized fuel cell breath test unit, which had been developed in Britain. Over the next decade, we made use of the unit in roadside surveys and enforcement research programs working with manufactures to improve the unit with an automatic sampling system and internal calibration and memory systems. Today, these Preliminary Breath Testing Systems (PBTs) are in use in almost every police department in the country. A less successful BAC sensing devise with which I was associated was the Passive Sensor or PAS, which collected air from in front of a suspect’s face and gave an indication of whether he or she had been drinking. In 1982, I determined that the Honda Motor Car Company had installed such a unit in their safety vehicle and had also provided some for use by the Japanese police. I imported a dozen units and tested them with the help of the Washington D.C. Police Department. Modifying the units for use by U.S. police required the integration of the sensor unit into the officer’s flashlight. This was accomplished and the units were tested by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and found to be effective in substantially increasing arrests at checkpoints, but because flashlights with the sensor are expensive (about $500) and officers have not been strongly attracted to their use, they are employed by only a few police departments.

Voas, R. B. (1983). Laboratory and field tests of a passive alcohol sensing system. Abstracts & Reviews in Alcohol & Driving, 4(3), 3-21.

Voas, R. B., & Layfield, W. A. (1983). Creating general deterrence: Can passive sensing help? The Police Chief, 50, 56-61.

Foss, R. D., Voas, R. B., & Beirness, D. J. (1993). Using a passive alcohol sensor to detect legally intoxicated drivers. American Journal of Public Health, 83(4), 556-560. PMCID: PMC1694491

Fell, J. C., Compton, C., & Voas, R. B. (2008). A note on the use of passive alcohol sensors during routine traffic stops. Traffic Injury Prevention, 9(6), 534-538. PMCID: PMC2632977

Public drinking establishments, bars, restaurants and clubs are an important source of overconsuming drivers and other alcohol-impaired individuals involved in crime and accidents. The focus of efforts to control this problem has centered on limiting the licensing of outlets and on responsible beverage service (RBS) programs, which attempt prevent heavy drinking and prevent service to the intoxicated. To support such programs, there is a need to better understand the clients of these alcohol outlets, both to design RBS programs as well as to assist the attendees themselves to adopt safe drinking procedures. Most efforts to better understand patrons and their drinking intentions have involved interviews in or on exit from the drinking location. In our studies of teenagers crossing the border to drink legally in Mexico and in studies of young adults visiting clubs in the United States, we have developed the Portal interview technique, which involves recruiting participants as the enter the drinking establishment and conducting brief anonymous interviews allowing for oral fluid collections of BAC and drug use on entry and when leaving the location. Following the entry interview, we place a wrist band with a sequence number on the participant, which allows the correlation of the entry data with the exit data. This has provided a new research technology which makes it possible to maintain the participant anonymity and thereby permitted the collection of drug as well as alcohol data in states participating in the transition to medical marijuana and marijuana legalization laws.

Lange, J. E., & Voas, R. B. (2000). Youth escaping limits on drinking: Binging in Mexico. Addiction, 95(4), 521-528.

Voas, R. B., Tippetts, A. S., Johnson, M. B., Lange, J. E., & Baker, J. (2002). Operation Safe Crossing: Using science within a community intervention. Addiction, 97(9), 1205-1214.

Johnson, M. B., Voas, R. B., Miller, B. A., & Holder, H. D. (2009). Predicting drug use at electronic music dance events: Self-reports and biological measurement. Evaluation Review, 33(3), 211-225. PMCID: PMC2812022

Voas, R. B., Johnson, M. B., & Miller, B. A. (2013). Alcohol and drug use among young adults driving to a drinking location. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 132(1-2), 69-73. PMCID: PMC3745512