<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="https://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Transport Research International Documentation (TRID)</title>
    <link>https://trid.trb.org/</link>
    <atom:link href="https://trid.trb.org/Record/RSS?s=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" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <description></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <copyright>Copyright © 2026. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.</copyright>
    <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
    <managingEditor>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</webMaster>
    
    <item>
      <title>A privacy-preserving and low-cost system for preventing cheats in in-vehicle alcohol detection</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2625321</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Young people are easily impulsive and influenced by their peers, so they lead to a high crash rate than adults when they consume alcohol. To forcibly prevent them from drunk driving is very important. Therefore, an in-vehicle system for preventing cheats in alcohol detection is innovatively designed according to the driving habits in China. In the system, the driver’s safety belt, an air pressure sensor, and four pressure sensors are complementary to the alcohol detection. A methodology for calculating barycentric coordinates of the driver using pressure data on the driver’s seat is derived using the theorem on moment of resultant force. The system is assembled, and experiments are carried out to determine critical parameter values and to verify the feasibility of the system. Control parameters of the system are set to be breath pressure, changes in bodyweight and barycentric coordinates of the driver, aiming to avoid cheating behaviors in the process of alcohol detecting and infringing personal privacy in a relatively cheap mean. Experimental results demonstrate that the system can run smoothly and reliably. It can effectively detect cheating behaviors and control the ignition circuit of the vehicle not to start when the driver consumes alcohol. Confronting the urgent demand to eradicate drunk driving, the system can effectively prevent these who neglect Road Traffic Law or are easily impulsive and influenced by their peers from drunk driving.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2025 15:37:24 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2625321</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Advancing youth transportation safety in North Carolina through addressing alcohol-related motor vehicle collisions</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2480378</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The aim of this work is to analyze trends in youth transportation fatalities and injuries in North Carolina (NC), assess the implementation of ignition interlock devices (IIDs) in the United States and abroad, discuss policy implications for IIDs, and highlight health equity considerations related to motor vehicle collisions (MVCs). MVCs cause the highest number of unintentional injury-related deaths for children and teenagers in NC, and policymakers should pay special attention to MVCs related to alcohol consumption. IIDs are effective in reducing collision rates and recidivism for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). Ignition interlock device requirements have been increasingly implemented globally over the past three decades. However, the adoption of stricter IID policies after first-time DUI offenses in NC and across the U.S. is a prudent public health measure to enhance transportation safety for both adults and children. Evidence-based interventions such as IIDs must also strive to address inequities in transportation safety, and the framing of proposed policies should reflect the tenets of cultural humility.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jan 2025 15:39:54 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2480378</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Technology Saving Lives: Proceedings of the 17th International Alcohol Interlock Symposium</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2458626</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This document presents a summary of the 17th International Alcohol Interlock Symposium held in Oslo, Norway, September 17-19, 2023. Topics included: EU legislative developments; interlock programs in Austria, Belgium, The Netherlands, and Norway; interlock program best practices in the U.S.; alcohol and drug-testing technologies; and advances in interlock technology.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Dec 2024 09:38:10 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2458626</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Assessing the Deterrent Effects of Ignition Interlock Devices</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2440420</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Ignition interlock devices installed after conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) have been shown to reduce subsequent DUI arrests (specific deterrence). However, there is little evidence on how interlock-device penalties might affect general deterrence, that is, deterring people from driving after consuming alcohol prior to a DUI conviction. A discrete choice experiment was conducted and data were analyzed in 2023 with 583 U.S.-based adults who consume alcohol at least once in the past week to assess the deterrent effects of five different penalties (fine, jail time, interlock device, license suspension, alcohol treatment) for alcohol-impaired driving under randomized sequential scenarios of high (20% chance of being caught) and low (1%) police enforcement. Participants resided in 46 states. Deterrent effects of an interlock penalty, operationalized as having to install an interlock device for 1 year, are large and on par with a 20-fold increase in police enforcement activity (from 1% chance of being caught to 20%), or a $2,000 increase in the DUI fine under the status quo enforcement regime. On average, a 1-year interlock penalty had the same deterrent effect as a 10-day increase in jail time. Wider use of interlock devices as a DUI penalty could have large deterrent effects, independent of their ability to physically prevent the motor vehicle of an intoxicated driver from starting. The deterrent effect documented here adds to evidence on interlock devices’ overall effectiveness as well as their potential to shift DUI penalties away from criminalization (jail time) and toward immobilization and rehabilitation.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Nov 2024 15:49:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2440420</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The NSW Mandatory Alcohol Interlock Program and drink driving reoffending</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2441510</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Alcohol interlock systems have increasingly been introduced as a measure to address drink driving and alcohol related road trauma, which remain at stubbornly high levels. A growing body of evidence suggests that interlocks are effective in reducing drink driving reoffending while installed in the vehicle, but there is less evidence of their longer-term effectiveness, once the device is removed. This evaluation examines the effectiveness of the Mandatory Alcohol Interlock Program (MAIP), introduced in NSW in 2015, for high-range and repeat drink drive offenders. It considers the take up and completion rates for the program and its impact on drink driving reoffending, involvement in alcohol related crashes and drive whilst disqualified offences. The evaluation draws on a linked data set comprising licensing, crash and program data from Transport for NSW (TfNSW) and reoffending data from the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Oct 2024 13:32:24 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2441510</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The NSW Mandatory Alcohol Interlock Program – enablers and barriers to participation</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2431349</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The first comprehensive outcome evaluation of the NSW Mandatory Alcohol Interlock Program (MAIP), introduced in 2015 found the program was effective in reducing further drink driving offending among high range and repeat drink drive offenders, at least while the interlock device was installed (Rahman, 2022a). Modest reductions in drink driving offending remained, following removal of the interlock. Despite these overall positive findings, a number of barriers persist which make it challenging for many drink driving offenders to participate in and complete the program. This paper draws upon additional findings from the evaluation, and qualitative and program data, to further explore some of the key enablers and barriers to participation. Findings will identify areas where there is opportunity to improve participation in the program, and enhance its effectiveness in reducing drink driving on NSW roads, helping to create a safer road environment for all.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Sep 2024 14:46:17 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2431349</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Strategies to Strengthen Alcohol Interlock Programs in Canada</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2425082</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This fact sheet looks at installation rates and effectiveness of ignition interlocks in Canada.  The interlock program is voluntary in the Northwest Territories, Ontario, and Yukon Territory, and  mandatory only for repeat offenders in Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, and Nova Scotia. New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, and Saskatchewan are the only provinces where interlocks are mandatory for all impaired drivers. Mandatory programs, such as Quebec's, have the highest rate of interlock installation (475.9 per 100,000 licensed drivers). In provinces with voluntary programs, the rates are much lower, for example, Ontario, one of the most populous Canadian provinces, has an installed interlock rate per 100,000 of 49.2. It is suggested that many jurisdictions in Canada underutilize interlock programs. The fact sheet concludes by featuring effective interlock programs with higher participation rates in Colorado, Minnesota, and Washington State.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Sep 2024 09:17:37 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2425082</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>2022 Annual Report of the California DUI Management Information System</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2289623</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In this thirty-first annual legislatively mandated report, 2019 and 2020 driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs (DUI) data from diverse sources were compiled and cross-referenced for the purpose of developing a single comprehensive DUI data reference and monitoring system. This report presents cross-tabulated information on DUI arrests, convictions, postconviction sanctions, driver license suspension/revocation actions, and on drivers in alcohol- or drug-involved crashes. In addition, this report provides 1-year proportions of DUI recidivism and crash rates for first and second DUI offenders arrested each year over a period of 30 years. Also, the long-term recidivism curves for the cumulative proportions of DUI reoffenses are shown for all DUI offenders arrested in 2005. The proportions of convicted first and second DUI offenders arrested in 2019 who were referred to, enrolled in, and completed DUI programs are also presented. Additionally, the numbers and percentages of DUI offenders who installed ignition interlock devices are presented by county and DUI offender status.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Nov 2023 10:25:31 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2289623</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Impact of Compliance-Based Removal Laws on Alcohol-Impaired Driving Recidivism</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2213773</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Currently, 33 U.S. states have an ignition interlock device (IID) compliance-based removal (CBR) law for those drivers with an IID installed in their vehicle. These laws require a certain number of days without violation before the IID can be removed. This study compared drunk driving recidivism rates, January 1, 2016-December 31, 2019, for two states with CBR laws and two states without. For the states with CBR laws, Tennessee and Washington, recidivism rates were 1.7% (TN) and 3.7% (WA). For the states without CBR laws, Arkansas and Iowa, recidivism rates were 5.6% (AR) and 6% (IA). Additional data in this report includes: offenders by IID installation and single or multiple offenses; and early, on-time and late IID removals for offenders by state and single or multiple offenses.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Aug 2023 08:44:29 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2213773</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Ignition Interlock Installations: 2020 State Data</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2169570</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This report contains data on 2020 ignition interlock installation collected from state agencies and compares this data to previous years’ results. Three measures are used to report trends in interlock installations: (1) Total Installs Number (TIN): total number of newly installed interlocks between January 1st through December 31st in a given year; (2) Total Installs Number all (TINall): total number of interlocks in vehicles at any time between January 1st through to December 31st in a given year, including devices that may have been installed prior to January 1st but were still in the vehicle for any period of time during that year following January 1st; and (3) Active Installs Number (AIN): total number of interlocks in vehicles of active participants on December 31st of a given year. As of July 1, 2022, 34 states and Washington D.C. required all alcohol-impaired driving offenders to install an interlock device. There were 99,570 new ignition interlock devices (TIN) installed in 13 reporting states and Washington, D.C. in 2020. Based on TINall data, 202,906 installations were reported in 14 reporting states and Washington, D.C. in 2020. As of December 31, 2020, there were 135,648 active installations (AIN) reported in 12 states.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 May 2023 09:26:33 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2169570</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>State of the Practice of Alcohol Ignition Interlock Programs</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2108300</link>
      <description><![CDATA[A breath alcohol ignition interlock device (BAIID) is a test device mounted near the dashboard that prevents the vehicle from being driven unless the driver provides a breath sample indicating a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) lower than a pre-set level, usually .02 g/dL. BAIIDs are an important type of sanction for driving while impaired (DWI) offenses. Initially used primarily for repeat DWI offenders, BAIIDs are now sanctions used for many types of DWI offenses, including first-time offenses. An offender assigned an interlock must first enroll in the State BAIID program, which incurs enrollment fees and other requirements. This project documented the state of the practice of interlock programs across the country by surveying BAIID programs and populating an online inventory on key areas, including legislation, program funding, data management, vendor oversight, interlock technology, and monitoring of driver compliance.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2023 17:12:07 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2108300</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>State of the Practice of State Alcohol Ignition Interlock Programs</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2108299</link>
      <description><![CDATA[A breath alcohol ignition interlock device (BAIID, or interlock) prevents a vehicle from being driven unless the driver provides a breath sample indicating a blood alcohol concentration lower than a pre-set level, usually .02 g/dL. Every State uses interlocks as a sanction for driving while impaired (DWI) offenses. The law may dictate that a DWI offender is required to use an interlock, or it may allow an offender the option to use an interlock in lieu of a harsher sanction such as license suspension or revocation. Offenders using interlocks must enroll in the State BAIID program to arrange for interlock installation, management, and removal. State BAIID programs vary due to variations in DWI and licensing laws. This project sought to document the state of the practice of BAIID programs by inviting BAIID program administrators and staff from each State to complete surveys or discuss the program features. Thirty-eight State programs completed the survey, participated in the discussions, or both. Thirteen programs (including the District of Columbia) did not participate in either, limiting the completeness of the findings. The project data are summarized online, located at: https://aic.tirf.ca/alcohol-interlock-program-inventory/. This project was conducted under the National Cooperative Research and Evaluation Program, a cooperative program between NHTSA and the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA). Each year, the States (through the GHSA) identify highway safety research or evaluation topics they believe are important for informing State policy, planning, and programmatic activities. This report addresses one of those requested topics, the need for current information on interlock programs.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2023 17:12:07 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2108299</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>2021 Annual Report of the California DUI Management Information System</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2072010</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In this thirtieth annual legislatively mandated report, 2018 and 2019 driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs (DUI) data from diverse sources were compiled and cross-referenced for the purpose of developing a single comprehensive DUI data reference and monitoring system. This report presents cross-tabulated information on DUI arrests, convictions, postconviction sanctions, driver license suspension/revocation actions, and on drivers in alcohol- or drug-involved crashes. In addition, this report provides 1-year proportions of DUI recidivism and crash rates for first and second DUI offenders arrested each year over a period of 29 years. Also, the long-term recidivism curves for the cumulative proportions of DUI reoffenses are shown for all DUI offenders arrested in 2005. Two analyses were conducted to evaluate if referrals to alcohol and drug education programs were associated with reductions in 1-year subsequent DUI incidents and crashes among those convicted of the reduced charge of alcohol- or drug-related reckless driving, and if referrals to the 9-month DUI program were associated with reductions in 1-year subsequent DUI incidents and crashes when compared to referrals to the 3-month DUI program among first DUI offenders. The proportions of convicted first and second DUI offenders arrested in 2018, who were referred to, enrolled in, and completed DUI programs are also presented. Additionally, the numbers and percentages of DUI offenders who installed ignition interlock devices are presented by county and DUI offender status.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Dec 2022 09:26:31 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2072010</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Cannabis Adaptation During and After Alcohol Ignition Interlock Device Installation: A Longitudinal Study</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2001646</link>
      <description><![CDATA[It has been found that some drivers required to use an alcohol ignition interlock device (IID) increase cannabis use to compensate for decreased alcohol use. The purpose of this study was to explore whether this increased cannabis use continues after an IID has been removed and alcohol use returns to previous levels. Data from the Managing Heavy Drinking (MHD) study of drivers in New York State was used in the analysis. A mixed between-within analysis of variance was performed at three time periods - IID installation, removal of IID, and six months post-IID removal. The results revealed that drivers who decreased alcohol consumption while the IID was installed on the vehicle considerably increased cannabis use during the period of IID use. In addition, they increased cannabis use yet again after the IID was removed. It was concluded that supplemental treatment interventions are required during IID use in order to forestall use of other substances or the possibility of multiple substance use once the IID is taken away.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Nov 2022 10:56:47 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2001646</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Design of an Evaluation Plan for Senate Bill 1046</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1997798</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In an effort to understand and decrease alcohol-impaired driving as a primary collision factor in California, the research team designed an evaluation plan for California Senate Bill 1046 and its focus on ignition interlock devices as a sentence for Driving Under Influence offense. This plan will evaluate whether Senate Bill 1046 affected the Driving Under the Influence crash frequency and severity, and whether sociodemographic and geographic factors influence its effectiveness. This report lays the foundation for the evaluation that will be conducted in 2024. The research team conducted a meta-analysis of the last 12 years of literature and research on ignition interlock programs inside and outside the United States. Based on the findings of this analysis, the recommended evaluation plan of the law revolves around three research questions that focus on the changes in the frequency/severity of DUI-related crashes in California, the impact of the law on recidivism and on interlock installation rates. To respond to these questions, the research team recommends a list of data that should be collected, such as the number of injuries and deaths resulting from alcohol-related motor vehicle accidents, installation rates of ignition interlocks compared to the prior five-year period, the number of individuals who were required to have an ignition interlock device installed who were convicted of an alcohol-related violation, as well as number of lockouts while an interlock is installed. The research team proposed several statistical approaches for the analysis of this data, such as descriptive statistics, time series analysis, analysis of variance, and logistic regression.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 2022 09:17:37 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1997798</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>