What is an ignition interlock device?
What is a Determinator DM-904 device?
How does the Sens-O-Lock™ work?
Do these devices really deter drunken driving?
Do these devices really save money? For whom?
Who should use the Determinator DM-904?
What does the Sens-O-Lock™ look like?
Can the Determinator DM-904 be disabled?
Couldn't someone else take the test for a driver who's been drinking?
Can the tolerance level be changed?
Is there a limit to the number of times the breath test can be attempted?
What is a random rolling test?
Are there different models of Determinator DM-904 for different vehicle types?
What about incorrect test results as in false positives or false negatives?
Couldn't my prescription drugs interfere with test results?
What models of Determinator DM-904 are available?
How much does a Determinator DM-904 unit cost?
How can I order a Determinator DM-904 unit?
How is Determinator DM-904 installed?
Where can I find a Determinator DM-904 dealer?
For information on becoming a dealer, click here.
An ignition interlock device is a breath alcohol analyzer connected to the ignition of a car. A vehicle equipped with an ignition interlock device cannot be started or driven unless the driver passes the unit's breath alcohol tests.
A Determinator DM-904 is a state-of-the-art ignition interlock device. A vehicle equipped with an ignition interlock device cannot be driven unless the driver passes breath alcohol tests via an analyser installed in the vehicle. Ignition interlock devices are increasingly effective in reducing drunk driving accidents and deaths. They have also been shown to dramatically reduce the number of those convicted of drunk driving who, nevertheless, continue driving.
There are models available for private automobiles, school buses and commercial trucks.
The different models of Sens-O-Lock™ work in different ways. Generally, they driver must pass a deep-lung breath test prior to driving the Sens-O-Lock™ equipped vehicle. Click on car (voluntary and mandatory), bus, or truck for specific information about how the device works in the different vehicle types.
Sens-O-Lock™ devices include a computer which records all test and pertinant driving data. This log is downloadable and printable. In the case of mandatory use, this data can only be accessed by court officials. Any attempt at tampering with the unit registers in this log.
Historically, most legal deterrants to drunk driving have not worked. Years of experience with license suspensions, mandatory jail terms, mandated alcohol treatment has shown that such deterrants do not work effectively. Studies reveal that up to 75% of those with suspended licenses drive anyway.
Several states have initiated court mandated ignition interlock programs. In Hamilton County, Ohio, judges had the option of offering the interlock devices to first time offenders with a blood alcohol concentration of .20% or higher at time of arrest, to repeat offenders with at least two convictions in a ten year period, and to offenders who refused a breath alcohol test at time of arrest. Of those who were offered the interlock option had the choice of participating in the ignition interlock program or serving a more traditional license suspension time or other alternative.
In a study of the Hamilton County, Ohio interlock program (Morse and Elliot, 1992) conducted over a 30 month trial period showed that repeat arrests for those who chose license suspension instead of the interlock program were three times greater than repeat arrests of those participating in the interlock program. During the 30 months, 4 of 273 (0.9%) interlock program participants were arrested for driving a car not equipped with an interlock device while 41 of 182 (9% of total) license suspension offenders were arrested.
In the Ohio study, far fewer interlock program participants were likely to violate the terms of the court mandate. Additionally, judges were more likely to offer the interlock program option to those at high risk for repeat offenses, such as those with drug or alcohol arrest histories than to first time offenders. The ignition interlock program participants were more likely to be chronic drunk drivers than first time offenders.
A Maryland study (TranSafety, Inc., 1997) of 1,380 repeat offenders eligible for license reinstatement were randomly assigned to a continuing treatment group or a treatment plus ignition interlock device group. Those in the interlock group were allowed to drive interlock equipped cars only. A year later, only 2.4% of the interlock group were rearrested in a alcohol-related driving violation while the rate for the treatment only group was 6.7%. Participating in the interlock program reduced the risk of a repeat drunk driving offense within the first year by approximately 65%.
An evaluation of a Canadian ignition interlock program (Weinrath, 1997) reports the following results:
During period of study: Participants Non-participants Rearrested in an alcohol-related driving violation. 10% 25% Arrested for speeding, reckless driving, etc. 2.4% 13.7% Involved in new accidents involving injury. 1% 7% Chronic drunk drivers (3 or more prior convictions) rearrested. 11% 28% High risk driving arrests (speeding, reckless driving, etc.) 2.4% 10.8% Involved in a new accident involving injury. 1.2% 4.6% Rearrested in first 6 mos. 1% 7% Rearrested in first 12 mos. 5% 13% Rearrested in first 18 mos. 7% 16% Rearrested in first 24 mos. 9% 19% Rearrested during 15 mos. after removal of ignition interlock from cars of program participants. 8% 13%
These impressive interlock program effects held even when factors such as age, criminal record, general driving and collision histories are considered.
It is apparent that a mandatory ignition interlock device program can have a large impact on the safety of our streets. It is also apparent that such programs can significantly reduce expense to taxpayers since far fewer police, court and incarceration hours, as well as uninsured injury victims are involved. Additionally, ignition interlock program participants pay all expenses involved in the program themselves, resulting in even greater savings to the taxpayer.
Morse, Barbara J. and Elliot, Delbert S. Effects of Ignition Interlock Devices on DUI Recidivism: Findings from a Longitudinal Study in Hamilton County, Ohio. Crime and Delinquency. 38:2, 1992, pp. 131-157.
TranSafety, Inc. Study Shows Ignition Interlocks Decrease the Likelihood of Repeat DUI/DWI Offenses. Road Injury Prevention & Litigation Journal, July 19, 1997.
Weinrath, Michael. The Ignition Interlock Program for Drunk Drivers: A Multivariate Test. Crime & Delinquency. vol 43. January 1997, pp.42-59.
Yes. Convicted drunk drivers can continue to work and run less risk of costly repeated convictions. Since the convicted drunk driver pays for their own unit, the taxpayers also save money in lowered penalty costs. Taxpayers also save money with lowered costs for care of uninsured injured persons.
Anyone who drives. Not only is Determinator DM-904 for those who are likely to drive drunk, it is a powerful tool for parents and other community members who rarely or never drink alcohol but who wish to provide a strong model for children.
 |
 |
|
The device
|
In car
|
Yes and no. If your personal car's unit has not been mandated by the court, you can use a master key to disable it. Parents can control when the device is used by their young drivers with a master key. Drivers of mandated units, school buses, and commericial trucks cannot disable the device.
Yes. It could happen. However, the random rolling retests help to prevent this. Such an act is a violation of the law when a driver has been mandated to use an ignition interlock device.
Yes, if the unit is not mandated by the court.
Yes, the driver has four attempts to complete a 6 second blow at 1.5 pounds of air pressure to provide a deep lung sample. If these attempts fail, the driver must turn off the ignition and turn the key again to reset the device.
A random rolling test is a test requested by the Determinator DM-904 device within a few minutes after the car has been driven for a set period of time.
There are models available for automobiles, school buses and commercial trucks.
To date, there have been no reported problems with this.
To date, there have been no known problems with this.
- DM-904 Mandatory Unit - cars. Used when a court mandates the use of an ignition interlock device for a driver convicted of drunk driving.
- 2100 Voluntary Unit - private cars. Used by private persons who wish to provide as much safety for their families as possible.
- 4100 School Bus Unit. Developed to enable school systems to provide the safest transportation for their students while minimizing the inconvenience to drivers.
- 5100 Tractor Trailer Unit. Developed to enable the trucking industry to prevent accidents caused by alcohol and sleep impaired drivers.
The Determinator DM-904 device is installed by a certified Determinator DM-904 technician.
Call our toll free number 1(888) 300-4580 or email us at info@sens-o-lock.com for more information.
Click on the link below for price information.
Model DM-904, for cars involved in court ordered mandatory ignition interlock programs. This unit is only available through a lease.
Model 2100, for cars not involved in mandatory ignition interlock programs.
Model 4100, for school buses.
Model 5100, for commercial trucks.
Call our toll free number 1(888) 300-4580 or e-mail us at info@sens-o-lock.com for more information.
Use our secure online ordering system here or
Call our toll free number: 1(888) 300-4580 or
E-Mail us at: info@sens-o-lock.com.
Call our toll free number: 1(888) 300-4580.
E-Mail us at: info@sens-o-lock.com.