1. Tuesday, 4 July 2017, 09:00- 12:30, Edinburgh
The Dutch Alcohol Interlock Programme: The rise and fall of a promising road safety measure
Safe & Sober Talk,
Alcohol Interlocks: Towards a European approach for the fight against drink driving?
Tuesday, 4 July 2017, 09:00- 12:30, Edinburgh
4 July 2017, Edinburgh
dr. Charles Goldenbeld

2. Content Scope of the problem General knowledge and guidelines
Preparation and characteristics Dutch AIP
2014 evaluation
4-pillars evaluation
Lessons?
A look at the future
4 July 2017, Edinburgh
dr. Charles Goldenbeld

3. Scope of the problem Drink driving is a serious road safety issue
A lot of measures have been taken in the past decades and this has led to a cultural shift: drink driving is not accepted any more.
However, there is a group of heavy drinking offenders that are less affected by the traditional measures.
The alcohol interlock programme (AIP) is an effective measure for this group of hardcore drink driving offenders.
4 July 17, Edinburgh
dr. Charles Goldenbeld

4. Knowledge & guidelines AIP
There are several practical guidelines on how to set up an AIP.
It is known that the inclusion of rehabilitation elements and strong enforcement will increase the effectiveness.
It is known that it is important to start with a pilot before introduction and include an evaluation after introduction to adjust the programme where needed. This requires some kind of flexibility in the process.
the Eiffel tower-metaphor is helpful for understanding how to build a good measure
Houwing, S. (2016). Alcohol interlocks and drink dring rehabilitation in European Union. Best practice and guidelines for member states. ETSC, Brussels.
4 July, Edinburgh
dr. Charles Goldenbeld

5. Dutch experience: Preparing the AIP
Administrative law construction: Judges not consulted
Ministry of Health left AIP working group
No rehabiliation measure combined with AIP
Costs AIP mostly recouped from offenders
Context: Existing system of both administrative law and criminal law procedures for alcohol offenders
9 september 2015
dr. Charles Goldenbeld

6. Characteristics Dutch AIP
Introduced December 2011, under administrative law
Choice: 5 year licence withdrawal or participation AIP
Target group: first offenders BAC between g/l and recidivists (second offence BAC limit ≥ 0.8 g/l.)
Length program: 24 months.
A fail test in the last 6 months of the programme led to 6 month extension
Costs per individual participant: 5000 €
4 July 2014, Edinburgh
dr. Charles Goldenbeld

7. 2014 evaluation The evaluation on four elements:
participation rates;
the experience of the stakeholders;
the relationship of the AIP to criminal law;
the effects on road safety.
Of the offenders eligible for the AIP, 48% participated. 8% of the participants quit the AIP before it ended. Of the participants who started before July 2012, 86% finished the programme. 14% of the participants had their participation extended by 6 months.
Most participants (75% or more) were satisfied with the motivational course and the use of the alcohol interlock device.
In around 0.1% of cases, attempts of fraud or sabotage were detected.
Recommendation to investigate conjuncture of administrative and criminal law procedures
4 July 2017, Edinburgh
dr. Charles Goldenbeld

8. 4 pillars evaluation
The Eiffel tower is a strong building and has four pillars.
The pillars are joined by a series of trusses or platforms at three levels.
An AIP is also built on 4 pillars: legislation, technical items, costs, and enforcement. Keeping the pillars connected: communication/platform of stakeholders
4 July 2017, Edinburgh
dr. Charles Goldenbeld

9. 4 pillars of Alcohol Interlock Program
Legislation: AIP should be well-founded in the legal system and clearly described so that it can’t be disputed on legal grounds.
Technical: device should work well, undisputed technical quality
Enforcement: keep possible offenders on the right track, get participants
Costs: should be kept low to increase participant rates
Keeping the pillars together: Communication to participants, to stakeholders, to press, to politicians
4 July 2017, Edinburgh
dr. Charles Goldenbeld

10. Dutch experience with 4 AIP-pillars
From the start AIP: complaints about the costs. Pillar of the costs was weakening. This is something that will probably happen in each AIP. So, the other pillars have to carry the weight.
Enforcement: Stable pillar, stable enforcement levels (random breath testing) guaranteed about 4000 participants per year.
Then technical issues (e.g. case windscreen fluid, they fixed it) but the tower became a bit less stable in this pillar.
But at the same time there were some legislative problems. What about truck drivers caught with alcohol? And what about people with low income? They were punished relatively hard. So this pillar was really weakening and finally it collapsed as well.
Negative end result: In 2015 the Dutch High Court found that the AIP was not legally sound and ordered that the AIP should be stopped in this format under administrative law.
4 July 2017, Edinburgh,
dr. Charles Goldenbeld

11. So what went wong? (minor) shortcomings in several pillars
Costs highs, minor technical flaws, legal inequalities, conjuncture of administrative and criminal law
Problems blown out of proportion
Negative framing AIP by press and lawyers
Several court cases
State High Council declared in March 2015 that participants in AIP could not be criminally charged (“double punishment” argument)
4 July 2017, Edinburgh
dr. Charles Goldenbeld

12. Lessons of the Dutch AIP-experience?
Select all main stakeholders and keep them on board
What if the stakeholders/representatives from the judicial power had been involved in the design phase of AIP? What if they have had the possibility to look at the design and stress their concerns in advance?
What if the Ministry of Health was kept on board?
Positive framing of measure
- What if the programme would be more promoted as a rehabilitation possibility instead of a punishment?
- What if politicians and press knew more about the issues and the programmes?
- What if drivers knew more about the programme in advance?
4 July 2017, Edinburgh
dr. Charles Goldenbeld

13. New future for the Dutch AIP
In October the Dutch Parliament decided that the Dutch AIP should return and that if the costs would be too high for offenders, the government should pay for the costs of the programme.
Luckily the Netherlands gets a second chance of making a proven effective measure a success.
The pillars of the AIP-Eiffel tower and its joining trusses/platform should be built stronger. And this can only be achieved when there is a joint effort of all stakeholders, including the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Health.
4 July 2017, Edinburgh
dr. Charles Goldenbeld

14. Thenk ye for your attention!
4 July 2017, Edinburgh
dr. Charles Goldenbeld