This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
After 2014, the Dutch license issuing authority stopped mandating the alcohol ignition interlock programme. First, because this was found to be contrary to the ne bis in idem principle (i.e., a person cannot be punished and be subject to several procedures twice for the same facts) and second, because the license issuing authority could not take into account individual differences between drivers, so that the programme had a much greater impact on one participant than on the other.
In practice, the interlock programme was implemented in the Netherlands until September 2014. Following a decision of the Court of Appeal of The Hague on 22 September 2014, all AIIP-files were postponed. When the Council of State decided in March 2015 that the interlock programme could no longer be imposed, all these cases were retroactively converted into another administrative measure (i.e., the Educational Measure for Alcohol and Traffic (in Dutch: Educatieve Maatregel Alcohol en verkeer [EMA]) or a fitness-to-drive test (in Dutch: onderzoek geschiktheid) depending on the seriousness of the DUI-offence).
I.e., a violation of article 8 or article 163 of the Traffic Regulations Act 1994 (in Dutch: Wegenverkeerswet 1994 [WVW 1994]).
If the criminal case consists of more than one offence, the date of the earliest offence determines the moment of recidivism.
The criminal career starts at twelve at the earliest, the minimum age of criminal liability in the Netherlands.
Violations of the Traffic Regulations Act 1994, the Traffic Code or the Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance Act (with the exception of article 30 paragraph 2). For example crimes like hit-and-run accidents, but also misdemeanours like serious speeding (exceedances of at least 30 km/h) or actually driving without insurance. Behaviours that fall under the Traffic Regulations Administrative Enforcement Act (in Dutch: Wet administratiefrechtelijke handhaving verkeersvoorschriften [Wahv]), e.g., minor speeding violations and red light negation, are not included in the judicial documentation and do not count as (traffic) offences.
E.g., theft, vandalism, or public violence offences.
In the case of categorical variables (e.g., gender, criminal sanction), a separate t-test is conducted for each category of the respective variable.
Interlock participants who completed the program (either successfully or due to early termination) or who passed away during the program are no longer at risk of recidivism during the program. The same applies to individuals in the license suspension group who passed away before the end of the observation period. Treating them if they were still at risk would overestimate the recidivism risk (Schuster et al., 2020). Therefore we treated successful programme completion, dropout, and decease as competing events. Furthermore, interlock participants for whom the program was terminated due to the overall discontinuation of the ASP in the Netherlands were lost to follow-up (i.e., right-censored). They were followed for as long as they participated in the programme.
If a situation arises where the various criteria contradict each other, then we opt for the model featuring the variable that provides the most accurate univariate prediction of DUI recidivism considering the AIC, BIC, LL, and Pearson’s chi-square (χ2).
More precisely, the standardized percentage bias is defined as the percentage difference of the sample means in the full (pre-matching) or matched (post-matching) interlock group and the license suspension group as a percentage of the square root of the average of the sample variances in the full (pre-matching) or matched (post-matching) interlock group and the license suspension group (formulae from Rosenbaum & Rubin, 1985).
For example for \(H\left(X_1\right)=\left\{a_1, a_2\right\}\) and \(H\left(X_2\right)=\left\{b_1, b_2, b_3\right\}, H\left(X_1\right) \times H\left(X_2\right)=\)\(\left\{\left(a_1, b_1\right),\left(\left(a_1, b_2\right),\left(\left(a_1, b_3\right),\left(a_2, b_1\right),\left(a_2, b_2\right),\left(a_2, b_3\right)\right\}\right.\right.\).
The AIIP can only start after the criminal driving ban has ended.
We account for the presence of competing events and incomplete observation periods by employing competing risk regression analysis. Additionally, we address differences in the composition of the groups by applying a matching procedure.
This percentage is based on an actual count of 39 recidivists two years after the interlock programme.
commenced and the interlock device was installed.
These percentages are based on actual counts of 99 and 179 recidivists, respectively, one and two years after the date when the AIIP was canceled.
References
Barret, H., Robertson, R. B., & Vanlaar, W. G. M. (2023). 2020 Ignition Interlock Installations. State Data. https://tirf.us/download/ignition-interlock-installations-2020-state-data.
Beck, K. H., Rauch, W. J., Baker, E. A., & Williams, A. F. (1999). Effects of Ignition Interlock license restrictions on drivers with multiple alcohol offenders: A Randomized Trial in Maryland. American Journal of Public Health, 89(11), 1696–1700. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.89.11.1696.
Blom, M., & Blokdijk, D. (2021). Long-term effectiveness of the alcohol ignition interlock programme: A retrospective cohort study in the Netherlands. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 151, 105888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2020.105888.
Blom, M., Boschman, S. E., & Weijters, G. (2022). Differentiële effecten maatregelen alcohol en verkeer. Research and Data Centre.
Blomberg, R. D., Peck, R. C., Moskowitz, H., Burns, M., & Fiorentino, D. (2005). Crash risk of alcohol involved driving: A case-control study. Dunlap and Associates, Inc.
Caird, J. K., Lees, M., & Edwards, C. (2005). The naturalistic driver model: A review of distraction, impairment and emergency factors. University of California, Institute of Transportation Studies.
Carson, J., Jost, G., & Meinero, M. (2022). Ranking EU progress. 16th Road Safety Performance Index Report on road safety. European Transport Safety Council.
Compton, R. P., & Berning, A. (2015). Drug and alcohol crash risk. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Copas, J., & Marshall, P. (1998). The offender group reconviction scale: A statistical reconviction score for use by probation officers. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics), 47(1), 159–171.
Ecorys, & SWOV & ADV Consultancy & Research. (2014). Study on the prevention of drink-driving by the use of alcohol interlock devices. Ecorys.
Elder, R. W., Voas, R., Beirness, D., Shults, R. A., Sleet, D. A., Nichols, J. L., & Compton, R. (2011). Effectiveness of ignition interlocks for preventing alcohol-impaired driving and alcohol-related crashes: A Community Guide systematic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 40(3), 362–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2010.11.012.
European Transport Safety Council. (2020). Alcohol interlocks in Europe. An overview of current and forthcoming programmes. European Transport Safety Council.
Fine, J. P., & Gray, R. J. (1999). A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 94, 496–509. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1999.10474144. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/.
Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works! Criminology, 34(4), 575–608. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1996.tb01220.x.
Iacus, S. M., King, G., & Porro, G. (2008). Matching for Causal Inference Without Balance Checkinghttps://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1152391.
Iacus, S. M., King, G., & Porro, G. (2012). Causal inference without balance checking: Coarsened exact matching. Political Analysis, 20(1), 1–24. https://gking.harvard.edu/files/political_analysis-2011-iacus-pan_mpr013.pdf.
Irwin, C., Iudakhina, E., Desbrow, B., & McCartney, D. (2017). Effects of acute alcohol consumption on measures of simulated driving: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 102, 248–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017.03.001.
Lane, S. D., Cherek, D. R., Pietras, C. J., & Tcheremissine, O. V. (2004). Alcohol effects on human risk taking. Psychopharmacology (Berl), 172, 68–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-003-1628-2.
Mathijssen, R., & Houwing, S. (2005). The prevalence and relative risk of drink and drug driving in the Netherlands: A case-control study in the Tilburg police district. SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research.
Moskowitz, H., & Fiorentino, D. (2000). A review of the literature on the effects of low doses of alcohol on driving-related skills. U.S. Department of Transportation.
Nieuwkamp, R., Martensen, H., & Meesmann, U. (2017). Alcohol interlock, European Road Safety Decision Support System, developed by the H2020 project SafetyCubehttps://www.roadsafety-dss.eu/#/.
Paul, R. K. (2006). Multicollinearity: Causes, effects and remedies. IASRI.
Peck, R. C., Gebers, M. A., Voas, R. B., & Romano, E. (2008). The relationship between blood alcohol concentration (BAC), age, and crash risk. Journal of Safety Research, 39(3), 311–319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-003-1628-2.
Prunier, J. G., Colyn, M., Legendre, X., Nimon, K. F., & Flamand, M. C. (2015). Multicollinearity in spatial genetics: Separating the wheat from the chaff using commonality analyses. Molecular Ecology, 24(2), 263–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13029.
Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1985). Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. The American Statistician, 39(1), 33–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1985.10479383. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/.
Schuster, N. A., Hoogendijk, E. O., Kok, A. A., Twisk, J. W., & Heymans, M. W. (2020). Ignoring competing events in the analysis of survival data may lead to biased results: A nonmathematical illustration of competing risk analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 122, 42–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.03.004.
Tollenaar, N., Wartna, B. S. J., Van der Heijden, P. G. M., & Bogaerts, S. (2016). StatRec. Performance, validation and preservability of a static risk prediction instrument. Bulletin of Sociological Methodology/Bulletin De Méthodologie Sociologique, 129(1), 25–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/075910631561.
Vanlaar, W. G., Hing, M. M., & Robertson, R. D. (2017). An evaluation of Nova Scotia’s alcohol ignition interlock program. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 100, 44–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2016.12.017.
Vink, M. E., & Diephuis, B. J. (2022). Berechting Van Misdrijven. In D. E. G. Moolenaar, R. Choenni, & van den S. W. Braak (Eds.), Criminaliteit en rechtshandhaving 2022. Ontwikkelingen en samenhangen (pp. 41–45). Netherlands Research and Data Centre.
Vissers, L., Houwing, S., & Wegman, F. C. M. (2017). Alcohol-related road casualties in official crash statistics. International Transport Forum. https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/alcohol-related-road-casualties-official-crash-statistics.pdf.
Vissers, L., Houwing, S., & Wegman, F. C. M. (2018). Recording of alcohol in official crash statistics: Underreporting and procedures to improve statistics. Journal of the Australasian College of Road Safety, 29(3), 15–21. https://doi.org/10.3316/informit.146889417244977.
Willis, C., Lybrand, S., & Bellamy, N. (2004). Alcohol ignition interlock programmes for reducing drink driving recidivism. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2004, (3). https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004168.pub2.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The Authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Blom, M., Weijters, G. Short-Term Effectiveness of an Alcohol Ignition Interlock Programme: A Retrospective Cohort Study in the Netherlands. Eur J Crim Policy Res (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-024-09577-x
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-024-09577-x