Download Interlock R Device Drivers

The threat of drunk drivers on our nation's highways has led to the proliferation of court-mandated ignition interlock devices (IIDs), which test the driver for alcohol consumption before ignition and during operation of the vehicle. Previous research has already demonstrated the distraction potential of IIDs. Litigation has suggested that this difficulty is particularly severe for individuals with small lung capacity, such as women and smokers. The current research sought to augment the previous distraction finding while also comparing men and women in terms of their ability to successfully use a Lifesafer FC-100 interlock device. Results showed that women had significantly less success in providing adequate breath samples to successfully operate the interlock device while driving, and supported previous distraction findings. Implications as well as suggestions for and challenges of further research are provided.

Figures - uploaded by Ben D Sawyer

Author content

All figure content in this area was uploaded by Ben D Sawyer

Content may be subject to copyright.

Discover the world's research

• 20+ million members
• 135+ million publications
• 700k+ research projects

Join for free

AN EVALUATION OF DRIVERS USING AN IGNITION INTERLOCK

DEVICE: BREATH TESTS WHILE DRIVING

Ben D. Sawyer and P.A. Hancock

1

Department of Psychology, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL,

ABSTRACT

The threat of drunk drivers on our nation's highways has led to the proliferation of court-mandated ignition

interlock devices (IIDs), which test the driver for alcohol consumption before ignition and during operation

of the vehicle. Previous research has already demonstrated the distraction potential of IIDs. Litigation has

suggested that this difficulty is particularly severe for individuals with small lung capacity, such as women

and smokers. The current research sought to augment the previous distraction finding while also

comparing men and women in terms of their ability to successfully use a Lifesafer FC-100 interlock device.

Results showed that women had significantly less success in providing adequate breath samples to

successfully operate the interlock device while driving, and supported previous distraction findings.

Implications as well as suggestions for and challenges of further research are provided.

INTRODUCTION

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

(NHTSA) estimates 40 minutes elapse between alcohol related

deaths on the nation's roads (2008). High rates of recidivism

among drunk drivers persist, despite criminal prosecution and

the proliferation of state per se laws which allow immediate

suspension of offenders' licenses (Rauch et al, 2010). A

relatively new weapon in the battle against drunk driving is

the court mandated installation of ignition interlock devices

(IIDs).

An ignition interlock device prevents intoxicated

individuals from operating a motor vehicles. Over 200,000

IIDs are installed worldwide, and all 50 US states have

programs requiring mandatory IID installation and use

(Robertson et al, 2011). A recent meta-analysis came to the

conclusion that IIDs were an effective at reducing recidivism

among previous offenders while they were installed in the

vehicle, although benefits varied widely by study.

Furthermore, this protection did not extend beyond the

removal of the device. It appears, therefore, that while IIDs

may be an effective deterrent while installed, they do not

modify behavior (Conbin & Larkin, 2011). IIDs have evolved

substantially since pilot programs introduced them in the

1980s. Initially, a breath sample delivered in a manner very

similar to police breathalyzers was needed to start the car.

However, as users became more adept at disabling these

devices, compensatory changes were made (Conbin & Larkin,

2011). Modern IIDs such as that described in the present

work, additionally require repeated breath samples at random

intervals during vehicle operation, and are capable of disabling

the vehicle in-transit and alerting police if the user fails to

comply with the machine's request for an in-motion breath test

or provides an alcohol-positive sample.

There can be little doubt that IIDs introduce a

complex secondary task into the driving environment. The

driver is required to lift the device from the dashboard, place it

on their lips, vocally match a tone or series of tones that the

device emits while simultaneously blowing into the device,

wait for confirmation, and then replace the device on the

dashboard. If the IID receives an inadequate or inconclusive

breath sample, the cycle must be repeated. This process

involves manual, visual and auditory tasks (see Wickens,

2002, Sawyer & Hancock, 2013), and is the very definition of

a manual – visual secondary task under NHTSA's newly

released vehicle distraction guidelines (NHTSA, 2012).

Although such tasks may not have an immediate impact on the

primary driving task, the increase in workload they incur

effectively limits the complexity the driving task can reach

before instability leads to degradation of both tasks (Hancock

& Warm, 1989). Indeed, a recent study comparing the driving

detriment associated with IID use with that of text messaging,

and further found that drivers using an IID reported higher

subjective workload and were involved in a greater number of

crashes (Medeiros-Ward & Strayer, 2011).

Past lawsuits have also claimed the use of an IID to

be a factor in loss of control of a vehicle. These cases cite the

difficulty of providing enough air to the device and

coordinating the use of the device with driving, focusing on

the lung capacity issues faced by groups such as women and

smokers (AP, 2004). Certainly, there is a physiological basis;

on average inspiratory capacity of the human lung varies

markedly between men, who enjoy an average of 3.8 L of

volume and women, who have only 2.4 (Guyton, Lange &

Lange, 2005). This leads to the possibility that IIDs could be

a class of device that not only increase driver workload, but

which disproportionately affect women.

The present investigation examined both the

distraction potential of the interlock device, and the possibility

that sex might play a role in the severity of this effect. It was

hypothesized that, given their smaller average lung capacity,

women would have less success in successfully providing a

breath sample to the IID then men. It was further

hypothesized that drivers would show more variability on

steering and lower speed during use of the device than in pre

and post.

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 58th Annual Meeting - 2014 2098

Copyright 2014 Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. DOI 10.1177/1541931214581441

by guest on October 28, 2015 pro.sagepub.com Downloaded from

METHOD

Participants

A sample of fifteen participants were recruited from

the Orlando area (mean age = 26.32 years) were paid $100 for

a three hour session. On average, participants had been driving

8.18 years and reported 6.75 hrs of driving each week. None

had any specialized driver training beyond normal licensure

nor had any previous experience with the Lifesafer device. As

described in procedure, three were removed from the final

analyses.

Stimuli and Apparatus

The iSim fixed platform driving simulator used in the

experiment displayed three channels at 1024 x 768 resolution.

The seat, and driving controls of the simulator are that of a full

size Crown Victoria. (for more see Sawyer & Hancock, 2012)

Participants were placed in a virtual environment; 12 miles of

rural two lane highway with light traffic in the oncoming lane

and posted at 35mph.

A Lifesafer FC-100 ignition interlock device was

used for the evaluation (as in Medeiros-Ward & Strayer,

2011). The device was attached to a power supply, and wired

so that a request for breath could be elicited on demand. Upon

activation, upon activation the green "blow" light illuminated

on the unit and to high-pitched beeps sounded. The

participants would then take the unit from the Velcro patch

that held it on the dashboard of the driving simulator. Holding

the tip of the mouthpiece between their lips, they would hum

while blowing into the mouthpiece. As they blew, the device

would produce a tone indicating that it was receiving a breath

sample. Participants were required to match that tone. At the

end of the breath sample, one of two beep patterns would

indicate whether the breath sample had resulted in a 'pass' or

an 'abort'. An "abort" light and the accompanying buzzer

sound could be triggered by not providing enough air or

providing too much air, humming at the incorrect tone or

volume, breaks in the hum, or too much humidity or saliva in

the breath sample. A successful test would light the "pass"

light, a blinking "run" light, as well as play a series of beeps.

The Lifesafer FC-100 unit was accompanied by a

handbook and 8 minute instructional video. These are the

same materials used to train users of the video who have been

mandated to install interlock devices by the court.

Procedure

Following informed consent, each participant was

asked to complete a short demographic questionnaire.

Participants then read the Lifesafer handbook and watched the

instructional video (Lifesafer, 2007).

In the pre-screen portion of the study, participants

were seated in the simulator and shown by a researcher

proficient in using the device how to operate the interlock.

Participants were allowed to attempt to elicit 'pass' signals

from the device as many times as desired, but only those able

to elicit two consecutive 'pass' responses from the device

were admitted into the driving portion of the experiment.

Two females and one male were removed from the study.

One of these females failed to elicit a 'pass' over forty times

before giving up. Some participants commented upon the

amount of air the device required to return a 'pass'. In the

drive portion of the experiment, participants were instructed

that if the Lifesafer device beeped, they were to provide a

breath sample. They were told that coming to a stop was not

necessary and that the device did not need to be used

immediately.

Half of participants conducted a 10 minute single-

tasking drive with the interlock in the car but not requesting

breath samples, while half completed a 10 minute multi-

tasking drive, in which the device beeped to request a test

four times. These drive types were counterbalanced in order.

During the multi-tasking drive, if a breath test resulted in an

abort, the system would request another test in 1 minute. If a

subsequent pass result was achieved, the next test would take

place at the top of the next minute occurring at least two

minutes later. Participants were tested until they had passed 4

tests, or until the 20 minute drive time had elapsed. Following

the completion of this driving phase, each participant was

thanked for their time and then departed the experimental area.

For analysis of success in providing a breath sample, the

number of 'abort' signals in each participant's drive was

recorded.

To ascertain driving quality a lateral measure of

driving, steering variance through the root mean square

(RMS) of steering wheel position, and one longitudinal

measure of driving, average speed , were analyzed. These

continuous driving measures were divided among four device

use windows. The Pre window was defined as the time from

10 seconds before the Lifesafer unit requested a breath sample

until the light came on and the unit beeped, and can be

considered the baseline for this experiment. The Alert

Fig. 1: A Lifesafer FC-100, as used in the experiment.

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 58th Annual Meeting - 2014 2099

by guest on October 28, 2015 pro.sagepub.com Downloaded from

window was defined as the time from the first beep until the

device was pressed to the participants' lips. The Test window

was defined as the time from the device arriving at the

participant's lips until the confirmation tone (either pass or

fail). Finally, the Post window was the time from

confirmation tone until 10 seconds after, and included the

participant returning the Lifesafer unit to the dashboard. Data

from the four tests requested was averaged within these

windows.

Collisions during both the All aborts and passes

returned by the unit were recorded, both in the pre-drive and

drive portions of the study. Data recorded by the simulator

included speed and steering variance (root mean square of

steering wheel position).

RESULTS

The intent behind collecting the single-tasking and

multi-tasking drives was to compare number of collisions, but

only a single collision was seen in the experiment. Although

this was in the multi-tasking drive, it does not bear statistical

analysis.

In analyzing number of aborts within the multitasking

drive (see Table 1), a ratio scale was constructed by

combining the four tests such that a participant who blew a

'pass' at each test would have a score of zero. A 2(sex)

x2(drive order) ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of

sex (F (1,8) = 9.38), p = 0.02), suggesting that females blew

more aborts than men. No significant effect of order or

interaction was seen.

A mixed within-between subjects 2(order) x 2(sex) x

4(window) ANOVA was conducted to determine the effects of

sex and order on average speed and steering variance at the

four windows of device use (Pre, Alert, Test, Post). Within

subjects, a significant simple effect of time was found for

speed (F (3,24) = 4.47, p = .01, partial eta squared = .36), such

that the pre window differed significantly from the Alert (p =

.04), and Test (p = .01) windows and the Post window

differed from the Test window (p = .01) (see Fig. 1). The same

general pattern was seen for steering variance. No significant

effects of order, sex, or use were seen.

Table 1: Number of Aborts Sub-divided by Drive Order and Participant Gender.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Males Females

Participant #

Aborts Participant #

Aborts

Order # 1

4 0 9 5

6 1 10 1

13 0 14 5

Order # 2

7 0 3 3

8 0 11 2

15 0 16 0

1 16

Fig. 2: Participants slowed down from a mean speed of 28.75MPH in the

pre window to 24.78MPH alert window and further to 22.14MPH the test

window of device use, potentially indicating elevated workload. In the

post window, the recovery from device interaction can be seen. Standard

error bars are shown.

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 58th Annual Meeting - 2014 2100

by guest on October 28, 2015 pro.sagepub.com Downloaded from

DISCUSSION

As a measurement of expired air, the device requires

both a specific, learned response (i.e., the humming technique)

and a threshold flow rate for a specified interval of time. In

respect of the latter capacity, it is those of a smaller stature and

associated smaller lung capacity that appear to have the

greatest problem in providing successful samples. During the

course of the pre-drive, it was evident to researchers that

women appeared to have a much harder time than men in

performing the actual blowing procedure to a successful

criterion. In the absence of data to support this view, only this

anecdotal account can be provided. However, this issue

appears to be revealed under the dual-task situation of driving

and requiring a test; women in our sample received far more

'abort' messages than men and as a result spent more time in a

dual-task driving situation.

Previous research has showed increased workload

and potential for collision of a magnitude comparable to text

messaging while driving with an IID (Medeiros-Ward &

Strayer, 2011), and our findings support this view; in dual-task

driving tasks such as presented in this study, speed level

relative to posted limits are indicators of workload of the in-

vehicle task (Alm & Nillson, 1994). Participants slowed

below the posted speed of 35mph in the alert, and even more

so in the test phase of device interaction. Only then, in the

post phase did they begin to return to roadway speeds.

Notably, no significant differences of sex were seen; although

women received more abort messages, their increased

interaction with the interlock did not lead to greater

impairment.

This study suffers from a low number of participants

directly related to the very brief amount of time this laboratory

had to evaluate the interlock device. Patterns such as the

significant effect of gender upon number of aborts followed by

failure to detect gender differences in driving measures must

be framed in the resultant lack of power. Subsequent to

collecting these data our team made several attempts to secure

another interlock device for evaluation. The manufacturer did

not provide a unit for further testing, no secondary market

exists as all devices are returned to the manufacturer when no

longer needed, and in the end the only apparent avenue to

securing an interlock was by court order subsequent to arrest

for driving under the influence of alcohol. While we feel

further evaluation in larger population is very much needed,

we have also found that there are limits to our dedication to

this line of inquiry.

Our current limited data suggest that women must

interact with the device more often in order to provide a

successful sample, and are therefore subjected to more

interaction with the device than men. All users appear to

suffer from elevated workload when using the device and

associated risk of dynamic instability and catastrophic failure

in the driving task (Hancock & Warm, 1989).

Further research is necessary to extend these findings

to other groups with lower than average lung capacity, for

example, the elderly (Frank, Mead & Ferris, 1957).

Furthermore, additional physiological research is needed to

more tightly establish the relationship between lung capacity

and difficulty in operating IIDs. Still, the present study

provides new evidence that ignition interlock devices may not

simply elevate user workload, but function differentially on

the basis of sex.

REFERENCES

Alm, H & Nilsson,L.(1994). Changes in driver behavior as a function of

hands-free mobile telephones. A simulator study. Accident Analysis and

Prevention, 26 (4) 441–451.

Associated Press [AP]. (2004). Lawsuit claims ignition interlocks not safe.

Retrieved from http://old.post-gazette.com/pg/04257/378119.stm

Coben, J. H., & Larkin, G. L. (1999). Effectiveness of ignition interlock

devices in reducing drunk driving recidivism. American Journal of

Preventive Medicine, 16(1), 81-87.

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.

Frank, N. R., Mead, J., & Ferris, B. G. (1957). The Mechanical Behavior of

the Lungs in Healthy Elderly Persons12. Journal of Clinical

Investigation, 36 (12), 1680–1687.

Guyton, W., Lange, J & Lange, D. (2005). Review of Medical Physiology.

Lange Medical Publications

Hancock, P. A., & Warm, J.S. (1989). A dynamic model of stress and

sustained attention. Human Factors, 31 (5), 519-537.

LifeSafer. (n.d.). Ignition Interlock Training Video. Retrieved March 20,

2012, from http://www.lifesafer.com/training.php

Medeiros-Ward, N., & Strayer, D. L. (2011). On the Costs of In-Vehicle

Assessment of Alcohol Consumption. Proceedings of the Human

Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 55(1), 1760–1764.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA] (2008). Traffic

Safety Annual Assessment-Alcohol Impaired Driving Fatalities" DOT

811 016. Washington DC: National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, 2008.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA] (2012). Visual-

Manual Driver Distraction Guidelines for in-Vehicle Electronic Devices.

Online at

http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/Distraction_NPFG-

02162012.pdf.

Rauch, W. J., Zador, P. L., Ahlin, E. M., Howard, J. M., Frissell, K. C., &

Duncan, G. D. (2010). Risk of Alcohol-Impaired Driving Recidivism

Among First Offenders and Multiple Offenders. American Journal of

Public Health, 100 (5), 919–924.

Regan, M. A. (2004). New Technologies in Cars: Human Factors and Safety

Issues. Ergonomics Australia, 18 (3).

Robertson, R. D., Holmes, E., & Vanlaar, W. (2011). Alcohol Interlocks:

Harmonizing Policies and Practices. Proceedings of the 11th

International Alcohol Interlock Symposium.

Sawyer, B. D., & Hancock, P. A. (2013). Performance degradation due to

automation in texting while driving. Proceedings of 7th International

Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training,

and Vehicle Design (No. 68). Bolten, NY.

Wickens, C. D. (2002). Multiple resources and performance prediction.

Theoretical issues in ergonomics science, 3(2), 159-177.

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 58th Annual Meeting - 2014 2101

by guest on October 28, 2015 pro.sagepub.com Downloaded from

ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.

• Christopher D Wickens

This paper describes the origins and hisotry of multiple resource theory in accounting for difference in dual task interference. One particular application of the theory, the 4-dimensional multiple resources model, is described in detail, positing that there will be greater interference between two tasks to the extent that they share stages (perceptua/cognitive vs response) sensory modalities (auditory vs visual), codes (visual vs spatial) and channels of visual information (focal vs ambient). A computational rendering of this model is then presented. Examples are given of how the model predicts interference differences in operational environments. Finally, three challenges to the model are outlined regarding task demand coding, task allocation and visual resource competition.

We sought to determine the statewide impact of having prior alcohol-impaired driving violations of any type on the rate of first occurrence or recidivism among drivers with 0, 1, 2, or 3 or more prior violations in Maryland. We analyzed more than 100 million driver records from 1973 to 2004 and classified all Maryland drivers into 4 groups: those with 0, 1, 2, or 3 or more prior violations. The violation rates for approximately 21 million drivers in these 4 groups were compared for the study period 1999 to 2004. On average, there were 3.4, 24.3, 35.9, and 50.8 violations per 1000 drivers a year among those with 0, 1, 2, or 3 or more priors, respectively. The relative risks for men compared with women among these groups of drivers were 3.8, 1.2, 1.0, and 1.0, respectively. The recidivism rate among first offenders more closely resembles that of second offenders than of nonoffenders. Men and women are at equal risk of recidivating once they have had a first violation documented. Any alcohol-impaired driving violation, not just convictions, is a marker for future recidivism.

Arguments are presented that an integrated view of stress and performance must consider the task demanding a sustained attention as a primary source of cognitive stress. A dynamic model is developed on the basis of the concept of adaptability in both physiological and psychological terms, that addresses the effects of stress on vigilance and, potentially, a wide variety of attention-demanding performance tasks. The model provides an insight into the failure of an operator under the driving influences of stress and opens a number of potential avenues through which solutions to the complex challenge of stress and performance might be posed.

Driving under the influence of alcohol poses a significant threat to community health and safety. One approach to thwart drinking and driving involves using an interlock device to test for alcohol consumption prior to driving. These devices measure blood alcohol concentration by breath and require drivers to pass a test before starting the vehicle and at a later re-testing during the drive. Relatively little work has been done to investigate the level of distraction potentially caused by these devices during re-testing. The current study compared the level of distraction of using an interlock device to single task driving and sending and receiving text messages while driving. Both the interlock device and texting resulted in small increases in lane deviation compared to single task baseline; however, participants looked away from the road significantly more often in the texting condition than the interlock condition. In terms of crashes and subjective reports of workload, the interlock device was higher than baseline but significantly lower than texting.

A systematic review of the literature to assess the effectiveness of ignition interlocks for reducing alcohol-impaired driving and alcohol-related crashes was conducted for the Guide to Community Preventive Services (Community Guide). Because one of the primary research issues of interest--the degree to which the installation of interlocks in offenders' vehicles reduces alcohol-impaired driving in comparison to alternative sanctions (primarily license suspension)--was addressed by a 2004 systematic review conducted for the Cochrane Collaboration, the current review incorporates that previous work and extends it to include more recent literature and crash outcomes. The body of evidence evaluated includes the 11 studies from the prior review, plus four more recent studies published through December 2007. The installation of ignition interlocks was associated consistently with large reductions in re-arrest rates for alcohol-impaired driving within both the earlier and later bodies of evidence. Following removal of interlocks, re-arrest rates reverted to levels similar to those for comparison groups. The limited available evidence from three studies that evaluated crash rates suggests that alcohol-related crashes decrease while interlocks are installed in vehicles. According to Community Guide rules of evidence, these findings provide strong evidence that interlocks, while they are in use in offenders' vehicles, are effective in reducing re-arrest rates. However, the potential for interlock programs to reduce alcohol-related crashes is currently limited by the small proportion of offenders who participate in the programs and the lack of a persistent beneficial effect once the interlock is removed. Suggestions for facilitating more widespread and sustained use of ignition interlocks are provided.

The effects of a mobile telephone task on drivers' reaction time, lane position, speed level, and workload were studied in two driving conditions (an easy or rather straight versus a hard or very curvy route). It was predicted that the mobile telephone task would have a negative effect on drivers' reaction time, lane position, and workload and lead to a reduction of speed. It was also predicted that the effects would be stronger for the hard driving task. The study was conducted in the VTI driving simulator. A total of 40 subjects, experienced drivers aged 23 to 61, were randomly assigned to four experimental conditions (telephone and easy or hard driving task versus control and easy or hard driving task). Contrary to the predictions, the strongest effects were found when the subjects were exposed to the easy driving task. In the condition where drivers had to perform the easy driving task, findings showed that a mobile telephone task had a negative effect on reaction time and led to a reduction of the speed level. In the condition where drivers had to perform the hard driving task, findings showed that a mobile telephone task had an effect only on the drivers' lateral position. Finally, the mobile telephone task led to an increased workload for both the easy and the hard driving task. The results are discussed in terms of which subtask, car driving or telephone task, the subjects gave the highest priority. Some implications for information systems in future cars are discussed.

• Jeffrey H Coben
• Gregory Luke Larkin

To determine if ignition interlock devices reduce driving while intoxicated (DWI) recidivism. Cochrane Collaboration search strategies were used. Studies for selection examined the effectiveness of interlock programs in a defined population. Studies were required to have a clear description of the program and outcomes evaluated, to have a comparison group and to provide interpretable data. A total of 31 studies were found. Ten studies met the selection criteria. Three of these studies were eliminated from further analysis because they did not contain original data. A fourth study was eliminated due to methodologic weaknesses, leaving six studies for final review and analysis. Pooled analyses were not done because studies did not follow similar methods over comparable time periods. Five of the six studies found interlocks were effective in reducing DWI recidivism while the interlock was installed in the car. In the five studies demonstrating a significant effect, participants in the interlock programs were 15%-69% less likely than controls to be re-arrested for DWI. The only reported randomized, controlled trial demonstrated a 65% reduction in re-arrests for DWI in the interlock group, compared with the control group. Alcohol ignition interlock programs appear to be effective in reducing DWI recidivism during the time period when the interlock is installed in the car. Future studies should attempt to control for exposure (i.e., number of miles driven) and determine if certain sub-groups are most benefited by interlock programs.

Posted by: efraincushen.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271728281_An_Evaluation_of_Drivers_Using_an_Ignition_Interlock_Device_Breath_Tests_while_Driving