Laboratory Evaluation of Alcohol Safety Interlock Systems, Volume III – Instrument Performance at High BAL
archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified
Get this paper ↗ (full text — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)
Summary
This 1974 report, Volume III of a series on Alcohol Safety Interlock Systems (ASIS), documents a laboratory evaluation of five prototype devices designed to prevent intoxicated drivers from operating vehicles. Unlike breathalyzers, these instruments belong to the psychomotor test class, measuring coordination, memory, judgment, and reaction time rather than directly measuring blood alcohol concentration (BAC). The study was motivated by a lack of performance data for these devices at high BAC levels, which are critical because arrested drunk drivers often exhibit BACs exceeding 0.200% wt./vol. The research aimed to quantify the rejection rates of five specific instruments—the Complex Reaction Tester, Phystester, Quickey, Reaction Analyzer, and Nartron Device—across a wide range of alcohol concentrations. The experimental program, conducted by Dunlap and Associates, Inc., involved 37 licensed drivers selected for their likelihood of tolerating high alcohol levels, thereby minimizing nausea and vomiting that could confound results. The study comprised 114 subject-days of experimentation. Subjects underwent rigorous training to ensure familiarity with the devices, followed by controlled testing sessions. During testing, subjects consumed precise doses of ethanol to achieve target BACs ranging from 0.04% to over 0.20%. Performance was assessed using various implementation strategies, defined as the number of trials required to pass out of a total allowed (e.g., passing 2 of 3 trials). BAC was monitored frequently using Gas Chromatographs and Breathalyzers, with data analyzed in discrete concentration intervals. Control sessions using water instead of alcohol were also conducted to isolate fatigue and anxiety effects. The report provides detailed tabulations of pass/fail rates for each device as a function of BAC, comparing different design configurations and subject demographics, including gender and age groups. Specific analyses were performed for each instrument, such as the Complex Reaction Tester’s performance under varying response time settings and error tolerances. The study also included ancillary investigations into alcohol absorption and elimination rates, as well as eye motion phenomena affected by BAC. The results allowed for the comparison of alternate design parameters and the assessment of how different implementation strategies influenced the likelihood of a driver being rejected by the interlock system. The significance of this work lies in its contribution to the development of effective drinking-driving countermeasures. By establishing the functional relationship between BAC and rejection rates for psychomotor-based interlocks, the study provided essential data for determining the suitability of these instruments for future applications. The findings supported conclusions regarding the efficacy of the tested devices at high intoxication levels and offered recommendations for further investigation. This research helped bridge the gap in understanding how non-chemical detection methods perform under conditions relevant to the target population of convicted drunk drivers.
Key finding
The study quantified the rejection rates of five psychomotor-based interlock devices at high blood alcohol concentrations, providing performance estimates for the Complex Reaction Tester, Phystester, Quickey, Reaction Analyzer, and Nartron across multiple implementation strategies.
Methodology
lab_experiment
Sample size: 37
Provenance
The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed. Discovered via bulk_ingest_rosap on 2026-05-23 (6 acquisition events logged).
| Stage | Outcome | Tool | Model | Prompt | Attempts | Completed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| discover | success | rosap | — | — | 2 | 2026-05-23 |
| archive | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-05-23 |
| extract | success | cached | — | — | 2 | 2026-06-10 |
| clean | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-01 |
| chunk | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-01 |
| embed | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-02 |
| enrich | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-05-23 |
| promote | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-05-23 |
| summarize | success | llm | qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant | summ-v5 | 3 | 2026-06-10 |
| tag | success | vector_similarity | — | — | 19 | 2026-06-11 |
| verify | success | — | — | — | 2 | 2026-06-10 |
Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-10; verification: verified.
Topics
Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.
Information type
What kind of knowledge this paper contributes, grouped by family — independent of topic (what it is about) and method (how it was studied).
- Methodological Resource: validation psychometrics