Hardware to install breathalysers in cars ruled out by Government – but it will mandate speed limiters and cabin drowsiness cameras

New cars sold in Britain will not be required to be fitted with equipment that easily allows the installation of in-built breathalysers, the government confirmed today.

Following a consultation that closed in May, officials said on Thursday that Alcohol Interlock Installation Facilitation (AIIF) – one of 18 active safety features being considered for mandatory fitment on new models to mitigate crashes – will not be a legal requirement.

AIIF is a standardised interface, wiring system and connection that allows any aftermarket alcohol breathalyser – also known as an ‘alcolock’ – to be installed in vehicles owned by drivers with previous drink-drive convictions.

Systems that are now set to become mandatory in new models include blind-spot warnings, tyre-pressure monitoring, drowsiness and attention monitoring cameras, and emergency braking technology designed to protect pedestrians and cyclists.

Also mandated will be controversial Intelligent Speed Assistance (ISA), which is speed-limiter technology that warns motorists when they are over the limit and can – in some cases – actively slow a speeding vehicle.

The government said it will keep AIIF under review as broader policies regarding alcohol interlocks develop.

However, vehicles already on sale in Britain – and many of those sold in the future – are likely to have AIIF fitted by manufacturers that do not want to incur the additional cost of producing UK-specific models that differ from those sold in the EU.

The government’s decision has been labelled ‘disappointing’ by road safety organisations after studies showed support for technology that can be used to prevent repeat drink-drive offenders from reoffending.

The ruling comes as part of the outcome of a safety consultation published by the Department for Transport (DfT).

The consultation was launched because road traffic collisions remain a major cause of death and serious injury on British roads, while progress in reducing the number of people killed or seriously injured has slowed.

Collision data shows that human factors, including distraction and excessive speed, remain major contributors to road casualties.

Evidence also suggests that advanced vehicle safety technologies – from blind-spot monitoring to drowsiness warnings – can help prevent collisions, reduce their severity and better protect vulnerable road users.

Views were sought on alcohol interlock interface facilitation technology as well as the mandatory introduction of 18 vehicle safety technologies.

AIIF facilitate for in-car breathalysers to be installed in vehicles driven by people with previous drink-driving convictions.

The devices effectively block the car’s engine from starting until the driver provides a legal specimen of breath. 

Yet more respondents, across both individuals and organisations, agreed than disagreed with the proposal not to mandate alcohol interlock interface facilitation at this stage.

The number of road deaths involving at least one drink-driver fell between 2022 and 2023, but fatalities remain higher than they were a decade ago 

Respondents were asked: ‘Do you agree or disagree with our proposal not to mandate this technology at this time?’

Of the 220 responses received, 55.5 per cent agreed with the proposal not to mandate AIIF at this stage.

Those who agreed with not mandating AIIF referred to proportionality and timing, regarding it as a lower priority than the wider package of vehicle safety technologies, and did not want to see AIIF delay the implementation of those measures.

Others pointed to the safety benefits of AIIF being dependent on a future alcohol interlock programme, meaning requiring the interface at this stage was unnecessary.

Respondents also raised concerns about costs and implementation burdens, particularly as some felt AIIF would be unnecessary for most vehicles.

Technology readiness, the current evidence base and the need for further policy, and legislative development were also cited as reasons not to make AIIF mandatory at present.

However, those in favour of mandatory AIIF, including the RAC, argued that the technology is a crucial component that could support the future use of alcohol interlocks, particularly in rehabilitation or offender programmes.

Responding to the DfT’s conclusion, RAC senior policy officer Rod Dennis said: ‘Given the Government has also consulted on introducing an alcohol interlocks programme for drink-drivers as part of its consultation on the Road Safety Strategy, it’s disappointing that it has decided alcolock interfaces should not have to be fitted to vehicles as standard.

‘It feels like a missed opportunity because it would have made it easier to fit alcolocks to the vehicles of repeat offenders in the future.

‘This is not about alcolocks being fitted to all vehicles; it’s about making it easier to install these devices in the vehicles of repeat drink-drive offenders so they cannot get behind the wheel drunk again. 

‘RAC research shows there is strong support among drivers for alcolocks being used in this way.’

A Department for Transport spokesperson said: ‘Driving under the influence of alcohol puts everyone at risk, and every drink‑drive collision represents a preventable tragedy.

‘Through our Road Safety Strategy we have sought views on a range of measures to tackle drink driving. While we’re not mandating the use of alcohol interlocks, we have consulted on their potential use as part of a rehabilitation process for offenders. We are now analysing responses and will set out next steps in due course.’

Does the public want alcolocks to be introduced?

Motoring organisations such as the RAC have called for their introduction after statistics showed that tens of thousands of convicted drink-drivers go on to reoffend. 

A Freedom of Information request submitted to the DVLA by the Press Association found that 27,000 individuals were convicted of multiple drink-driving offences in the 11 years leading up to July 2024.

Last year, 53 per cent of drivers polled by the RAC said they wanted the Government to allow courts to order anyone convicted of drink-driving to have alcolock breathalysers installed in their vehicles.

Support for alcolock devices is not unanimous, however. Some 23 per cent of motorists told the RAC they did not believe alcolocks would reduce drink-driving, while a further 23 per cent said they were unsure about the idea.