Workshop On In-Vehicle Alcohol Test Devices

Snyder, Monroe B. · 1986 · ROSA P / United States. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

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 report documents a workshop sponsored by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on September 17, 1986, regarding the state of the art for in-vehicle alcohol test devices. The event aimed to convene manufacturers, legislators, researchers, and the public to review the development and application of technologies designed to prevent or deter drunk driving. The motivation stemmed from decades of research, beginning in the late 1960s, into devices that require drivers to pass an impairment test before operating a vehicle. Early efforts focused on breath testing and performance-based systems, but progress was hindered by issues such as the susceptibility of breath tests to circumvention and the need for further refinement in performance devices. The workshop consisted of six sessions covering the status of performance testers, breath testing devices, manufacturer issues, user issues, and research needs. Discussions highlighted that activity had shifted toward breath test devices, with limited recent research on performance tests. Performance devices, such as the Tracometer, showed promise in detecting impairment at legal blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limits but required extensive individualized training and lacked accuracy at low BAC levels. Breath testing devices, including prototypes like the Soberlyzer and Alcohol Breath Ignition Controller, were found to be generally accurate at low BAC levels but vulnerable to cheating via substitute air or filtered breath samples. Technical comparisons suggested that fuel cell sensors might offer greater reliability than metal oxide semiconductor sensors, which suffer from calibration drift and sensitivity to non-alcohol substances. Operational applications were primarily limited to the judicial system, with the California Farr-Davis Driver Safety Act of 1986 allowing judges to mandate device installation for convicted drunk drivers. Pilot programs in Denver, Colorado, and Maryland had installed devices on over 60 vehicles. Participants noted that the general public showed little interest in these devices for voluntary use, though fleet owners and insurance companies were potential future markets. Significant challenges identified included circumvention, with proposed solutions involving penalties, breath pattern matching, divided attention tasks, and random post-start tests. Additionally, manufacturers faced difficulties in obtaining product liability insurance, and there was a consensus on the need for uniform device certification standards and rigorous evaluation studies to determine efficacy in reducing recidivism and traffic injuries.

Key finding

Breath test devices were found to be susceptible to circumvention via substitute air samples, while performance devices required extensive individualized training to achieve accurate pass-fail cutoffs.

Methodology

review

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).

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.

• alcohol detection systems
• dui enforcement

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