Transportudvalget 2012-13
B 33
Offentligt
1228456_0001.png
1228456_0002.png
1228456_0003.png
1228456_0004.png
1228456_0005.png
1228456_0006.png
1228456_0007.png
1228456_0008.png
Alcohol interlock devicesStudy on the prevention of drink-driving by use of devicesMotor Vehicle Working GroupWim Spit, Rene MathijssenBrussels, 4 February 2013
Content of presentation1.Consortium2.Background3.Main questions4.Approach5.Specific issues6.Questions?
Consortium
• Study carried out under framework contract with DG MOVE• COWI lead consultant in framework contract• Present study team consists of:– Ecorys, project management, policy options, cost benefitanalysis, stakeholder consultation– SWOV, analysis of role of alcohol in road accidents,effectiveness of alcohol interlock devices– ADV, experiences with implementation of alcohol interlockprogrammes and standardisation (CENELEC)
Background• EP has asked for measures (report on the Commission’s PolicyOrientation on Road Safety 2011-2020)• DG MOVE needs information to enable a decision on whether to proposeEU legislative measures requiring installation of alcohol interlock devices.The information should be sufficient for an Impact Assessment (ifneeded).• DG ENTR is involved because of the link between alcohol interlock deviceand motor vehicle (possible type approval requirements in relation toinstallation, verification, certification)• Possible scope of measures:– Installation in all motor vehicles or vehicles of certain type (e.g. heavygoods vehicles)– Installation in certain vehicles according to their use (e.g. schoolbusses, dangerous goods trucks, taxis)– Compulsory use by specific user groups (e.g. repeated drink drivingoffenders)
Main questions• What is potential benefit for road safety of alcohol interlockdevices?• How cost effective are alcohol interlock devices?• What is the view of stakeholders on possible EU measures?• What measures are recommended? For what category of driversand/or vehicles?Sub-questions:• What are experiences in Member States and third countries?• What technical problems do exist and which solutions areavailable. What are advantages and disadvantage of solutions?• Is there a need for (additional) standardisation of type-approvalprovisions for the device and its installation in vehicles?• Assess costs and benefits, advantages and disadvantages ofrecommended measures.
Approach• Literature review• Analysis of road safety data and role of alcohol use• Analysis of legislation, experiences with alcohol interlockprogrammes in Member States and third countries• Assessment of potential effect of use of alcohol interlock deviceson drink driving• Stakeholder consultation (questionnaire and meeting)• Design of policy options• Evaluation of policy options• Cost benefit analysis of recommended measures
Specific issuesWhichstakeholdersto be consulted?• Policy makers• Research organisations• Road safety organisations• Road user organisations• Alcohol interlock manufacturers• Type approval authorities• Car manufacturers• Transport employers, trade unionsSpecific attention• Generic prevention: cost, reliability, accuracy, invasiveness, speed, BAC-threshold (legal limit or 0.2 g/L)• In case of retrofit: connectivity between alcohol interlock and car(cooperation needed between car manufacturers, alcohol interlockmanufacturers and type approval authorities)• Additionally for offender programmes: legislative integration, dataprotection
Questions?