Automatic language translation
Our website uses an automatic service to translate our content into different languages. These translations should be used as a guide only. See our Accessibility page for further information.
The effectiveness of alcohol interlocks in reducing repeat drink driving and improving road safety
Supporting documents
- Full report (pdf) PDF, 1.2 MB
- Plain language summary (pdf) PDF, 169.8 KB
- Appendix - CJB251 (pdf) PDF, 841.1 KB
- Media release
Summary
Background
The Mandatory Alcohol Interlock Program (MAIP) was introduced in February 2015 and applies to offenders convicted of refusing a breath test, high range drink driving and repeat drink driving. After serving an initial disqualification, offenders can choose to:
- drive with an interlock device in their vehicle, which requires a negative breath test to start the vehicle; or
- serve out the remainder of a 5 year automatic disqualification period.
To evaluate the impact of the program, we used a dataset of 98,501 proven drink driving and refuse to provide a breath sample offences committed between 1 February 2012 and 30 April 2018, linked to Transport for NSW datasets on MAIP orders and crashes. We compared outcomes for first-time offenders who took up MAIP and who recorded a Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) just above the 0.15 threshold, with outcomes for first-time offenders just below the threshold who were likely to have taken the program up were it available. To estimate the program’s overall impact, we also compared outcomes for offenders who committed MAIP-eligible offences with offenders who committed first time mid-, low- or special-range drink driving offences, before and after MAIP was introduced.
Key findings
Figure 1 shows the change in the probability of committing a drink driving re-offence before, during, and after interlocks were installed in the vehicles of first-time high-range drink driving offenders. First-time offenders were 11 percentage points less likely to commit a new drink driving offence while the device was installed, than their counterparts who recorded a BAC slightly below the 0.15 threshold. We also find a small (3p.p.) reduction in the likelihood of a drink driving offence in the two years after the interlock is removed.
Looking at all eligible offenders, we estimate that MAIP reduced the likelihood of drink driving reoffending by 3.4 p.p. within 36 months of finalisation, and by 6.0 p.p. within 60 months of finalisation. Both of these constitute a 43% reduction in drink-driving reoffending among all serious and repeat drink driving offenders eligible for Phase 1 of MAIP.
We found no impact of the program on driving while disqualified or on road crashes, despite the program enabling offenders to return to driving sooner.
Conclusion
Interlock devices significantly reduce drink driving while they are installed and (to a modest extent) following their removal.
We acknowledge Aboriginal people as the First Nations Peoples of NSW and pay our respects to Elders past, present, and future.
Informed by lessons of the past, Department of Communities and Justice is improving how we work with Aboriginal people and communities. We listen and learn from the knowledge, strength and resilience of Stolen Generations Survivors, Aboriginal Elders and Aboriginal communities.
You can access our apology to the Stolen Generations.