Our previous post on Smart Start brings to mind something else that interlock advocates don’t talk about much: How much trouble faulty interlocks could bring to your everyday life. Interlocks are subject to “false-positive” readings, which occur when it registers a positive reading, even though you haven’t consumed any alcohol.
To see how chaotic universal interlocks could be, look no further than interlock advocate Robert Strassburger of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. In a 2008 presentation, Strassburger presents two scenarios. In the first, interlocks are assumed to be “Six Sigma” devices. Six Sigma refers to a quality management system in which a product only has 3.4 defective parts per million. In other words, assume 99.99966% of device parts are free of fault.
But even if (and that’s a big “if”) interlocks met this high standard, Strassburger calculates there would still be almost 4,000 cases of misreadings per day. That’s thousands of people trying to go to work, school, or about their business who could find their car locked down by a faulty interlock or having to file an “appeal” with an interlock company.
In Strassberger’s second scenario, interlocks are only “3 Sigma” reliable, which he defines as 2,700 defective parts per million. This would cause almost 3 million misclassifications every day, and these misreadings would outnumber the number of hypothetical DUI trips that the interlocks would stop. In other words, by this quality standard, interlocks do far more harm than good.
Today’s interlocks aren’t exactly Six Sigma quality if they’re being set off by people eating pizza and drinking coffee. Yet, MADD is looking to see interlocks—or similar alcohol-sensing technology—placed in all cars within the next 5-10 years.
Does that really seem like a good idea?