The ignition interlock device is a theoretical machine that was to measure only ethanol and be installed in cars of DUI offenders to help keep the public safe on the roads.  Unfortunately, not nearly enough research was done in VA as to the potential downsides of the device being a major cause of distracted driving.

The interlock is installed directly against every distracted driving law in the Commonwealth.  According to the 2016 comprehensive study conducted by the CA DMV, entitled "Specific Deterrent Evaluation of the Ignition Interlock Pilot Program in California", (AKA study #251) "Individuals obtaining an IID restricted license had a higher increase in crashes, including fatal/injury crashes, compared to DUI offenders whose licenses remained suspended or revoked."  

"IIDs can be associated with a significant increase in crash risk among offenders who installed an IID, which suggest, in essence, doubtful traffic safety benefits of IID devices (DeYoung, Tashima, & Masten, 2005)."

"To properly conduct such an evaluation, it is necessary to examine not just intended (or presumed intended) outcomes... it is presumed that any judgement as to the ultimate traffic safety value of a proposed program must take into account, when possible, unintended effects. To do otherwise would be to leave unexamined certain critical information about the overall impact of the safety of the users of California's roads. Any proposed change to DUI sanctions  may have an associated effect on crashes - even where that associated effect was unintended...it is therefore vital to understand, to the extent possible, both the intended and unintended effects that proposed DUI sanctions may have on crash outcomes."

"During days 200 to 365, the AB 91 IID/restricted license group is associated with the odds or hazards of a subsequent crash that is approximately 97.5% higher than the comparison group... the AB 91 IID/restricted license group has higher odds or hazards of subsequent crashes, and this trend increases over the 12-month study period."

"During days 731 and subsequent, the AB 91 IID/restricted license group is associated with the odds or hazards of a crash that is 116% higher than the comparison group, the... IID/restricted license group has a higher odds or hazards of a subsequent crash, and this trend increases over the 30-month study period."

"...the program is also associated with an increase in crash involvement among all DUI offenders that are subject to the program. This is particularly problematic since a substantial proportion of these crashes are involving injuries and/or fatalities...the proportion of fatal/injury crashes ranged from mid-30% to low-40% for different DUI offender groups..."

"...when compared to drivers with a suspended or revoked license, the traffic safety benefits of this program are potentially marginalized by the greater safety toll of an increased propensity for crash involvement."

During my attendance at the June 7, 2019 VASAP Quarterly meeting, Chris Morris stated he had no personal knowledge of anyone being in a crash due to an interlock device. 

Now you know of one, Chris. In 2015, my 2007 V6 Manual Transmission Mustang was totaled at a low speed, and it was solely and completely due to the interlock device.  

I was exiting my neighborhood one early morning, inherently sober, in my 5 speed Mustang.

There were two potholes situated at both of my front tires as I made a right-hand turn in first gear. Quite jarringly, I hit them both, the IID handset fell to the floor and went under my seat.  I panicked, and instinctively reached for the IID.  I went maybe 100 feet in first gear, before I had to shift into second, but had not a free hand. I veered into a line of parked cars that, unfortunately, was occupied.  I immediately called Hampton police and tried to comfort the girl I'd hit but was mortified, scared and lost the only car I'd ever purchased myself. 

This accident was 100% preventable and only occured due to the distracted driving device I was forced to have installed.

This occurrence piqued my interest, and I acquired ignition interlock involved crash stats from the VA DMV.  Instead of keeping these stats automatically as a category, they made a private citizen pay $500 for one single year's worth - FY2019. The request was for persons having an IID installed at the time of the accident, and out of 291 crashes, over 50% produced injury or fatality. There were 158 injuries and 2 fatalities. That is consistent with the CA DMV study finding a disturbingly high proportion of injury/fatal crashes associated with IID. 

In 2010, the VA DMV IID reported the IID involved crashes at 223, and in 2017 the crash number had tripled to 669.  I was unable to afford the injury/crash data for those years, as the DMV has doubled the cost for my access to information as it has become increasingly damning. 

Interock is especially hard to use for women and I can attest to that. 

Due to generally smaller lung capacity compared to men, it has been shown women have 16 times the failed breath sample attempts (aborts) when using the BAIID. (1)

Failed breath sample attempts can be caused 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."

This means women have 16 times the interaction with the machine upon startup, and, during rolling retests while on Virginia's roadways. Who in their right mind thought it was OK to install this terror inducing device that, 9 times out of 10 required me to try more than once to obtain a sample.

I struggled mightily with the basic functionality of the device and experienced hyperventilation on numerous occasions due to sequential invalid samples.

Incidentally, an overlooked cause of the exponentially higher number of breath sample aborts for women, is simply tone of voice.

Some BAIID’s anti-circumvention features require the driver to provide sufficient reverberation for the device's handset to detect human presence.  Of course, women naturally tend to have higher pitched voices that produce less reverb, and must force a difficult and uncomfortable alteration in vocal method to achieve a passing breath sample.

Paramount, however, in my opinion, what makes this device so dangerous, is the fact the maneuver required to obtain the IID breath sample involves not tidal breath, like a breathalyzer, but execution of the vital capacity maneuver.  The vital capacity maneuver obtains the greatest volume of air that can be expelled from the lungs after taking the deepest possible breath.

Even then, the subject is required to actually force breath out of the lungs into the BAIID far beyond what's natural, and in my case, experience disorientation via hypoxia and actual, physical lung pain.

"In order to fulfill the minimum 1.5 liter volume requirement...the sixty year old woman must exhale at least 60% of her vital capacity.  Whereas the twenty year old man would only have to exhale about 25% of his vital capacity.  At the same blood alcohol concentration (BAC), the smaller lung volume would yield a greater breath alcohol reading." (2)

So, in addition to being 16 times more difficult for women to simply achieve a valid breath sample, the requirement alone can skew the test results to reflect an erroneously high BrAC.

A simple solution to the danger of a random rolling retest would be to pull over, but I live in Hampton, Virginia where a normal commute involves the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel, which can be backed up, bumper to bumper, for an hour with no shoulders. In fact, I had to navigate this traffic, while constantly shifting between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd gears while trying repeatedly, driving beside 18-wheelers, to get a valid sample, breathing until I was lightheaded.  

This is a ridiculous State mandated distracted driving device. It flies in the face of common sense, and all fundamental safe driving principles. IID makes a complete mockery of the current Visual-Manual NHTSA Driver Distraction Guidelines for Portable and Aftermarket Devices. Interlock literally goes against every bullet point in that document; "The driver, not the system/device, should control the pace of task interactions...". Everything is outlined in the body of the petition.

To the new Commissioners, please be advised I have submitted 10 substantially valid petitions that can be found on VA Townhall, and all proofs and evidence of which I speak can be found, readily published, on the Facebook page Virginia Ignition Interlock Forum. Video proof of yellow light fraud is also posted here.

I also have the unique perspective of being completely alcohol free and having nine different days of provable non-ethanol related readings. I called HPD to each scene as witnesses to my total sobriety and to use HPD breathalyzers, which all resulted in .000 BrAC readings at the same time I was being locked out. One time I was stranded alone with a man outside of my car and I couldn’t get away, and at the time, a victim of recent sexual assault, I was traumatized. I also have PTSD due to repeatedly being stranded and being falsely accused of drinking while sober.

My father in law of 21 years is a 40-year tenured professor at Indiana University and a former President of the American Society of Mass Spectrometry. In fact, he's regarded as the "father of modern environmental Mass Spectrometry"(3)  The Hites Lab at IU contains three gas chromatograph mass spectrometers and, coincidentally, the GCMS is the only machine in the world that can distinguish ethanol from other alcohols. 

To keep using interlock in Virginia would be a continuation of a colossal mistake. The electrochemical fuel cell doesn't quantify ethanol, VASAP now says there's no required warning between .000 and .02, and it's a dangerous detriment to society.  

In my extraordinarily experienced opinion, to force ignition interlock installation in a vehicle with manual transmission, with this knowledge, would be utterly criminal. 

Most humbly,

Cynthia Hites

(1) An Evaluation of Drivers Using an Ignition Interlock Device:  Breath Tests While Driving.  By Ben D. Sawyer and P. A. Hancock

(2) Breathing Related Limitations to the Alcohol Breath Test.  By Dr. Michael P. Hlastala, Ph.D. 

(3) http://iaglr.org/releases/iaglr-honors-hites-with-lifetime-achievement-award/ 

I support the petition in the name of public safety.  As strange as it sounds, the public is in more danger from sober drivers randomly forced to operate an ignition interlock than drivers whose license was suspended or revoked. 

First time DUI offenders who had interlocks installed were at greater risk for an accident than those who did not, according to CA DMV Study #251. VASAP should be keeping these statistics for Virginia, but they don't.  The DMV does, and the number of interlock related crashes tripled from 2012-2017,  after first time DUI offenders were required to have an interlock installed.

How do you know how well your program is functioning if you don't use the most important metric of success ... how many offenders complete the program successfully without an interlock violation?

The VASAP Commission is about to REMOVE the requirement for ignition interlock devices to be alcohol specific, meaning that the Commission ACKNOWLEDGES that interlock devices measure other alcohols and they don't care that they are changing the intent of the law, which is to measure just one thing, ethanol (drinking liquor).

Interlock companies say the electrochemical fuel cell is "much more sensitive" to alcohol than previous technology, and that's close enough.  Those companies better not say anywhere in any literature that their devices are alcohol specific, especially in their proposals to operate in Virginia.  If the state of Virginia isn't requiring interlock devices to be alcohol specific when alcohol is defined as ethanol, they shouldn't be allowed.

These companies can't use the broad definition of alcohol, meaning all hydroxyl group compounds when doing business with the state, because the VA law defines alcohol as ethanol, just as the NHTSA and FDA do.  That's deception at worst, and at best a misrepresentation of the device's capabilities.  Either way it's grounds for the Commission to suspend or revoke an interlock company's certification.

When it comes to public safety, interlocks are ineffective at controlling recidivism after an offender's interlock is removed.  Jail and a suspended license are much better deterrents than the interlock.  Classes on responsible living and drinking are paramount and are shown to be far more effective.

Interlocks are a hazard to everyone on the road and are in direct conflict with mandated laws against distracted driving.  The problems users experience with interlocks range from installations resulting in vehicle damage, poor customer service, and non-ethanol related readings that get sent to court, sometimes a year after the interlock violation.

The Commission staff will never admit fault or take responsibility for any wrongdoing.  The staff wants to assume everyone is guilty and treats them as such.  I personally know of 4 people whom have had their cases dismissed after a collective 42 additional months on the interlock, that will never be refunded.  VASAP falsely accused these compliant, and fragile offenders of drinking and driving before their cases were dismissed. Each citizen would have to to file a court case to get refunded, which is totally unfair. Excess interlock fees should be refunded automatically by the respective interlock company in the event of a dismissal or not guilty verdict.

The interlock should be used as a gate to keep drunk drivers from starting their vehicles.  Six months is the longest amount of time an interlock should be on a car.  The longer an interlock is on a car, the greater the risk to public safety.