Allan F. Williams

Increasing seat belt use in North Carolina

North Carolina has embarked on an ambitious multiyear program designed to increase seat belt and child restraint use and to reduce other traffic law violations, including alcohol-impaired driving. Increasing seat belt use, based on the Canadian model of a combination of intensive enforcement and publicity about the enforcement, was emphasized during the first phase. The program called “Click It or Ticket,” was implemented in October and November 1993 and followed up with a second enforcement blitz in July 1994. In all, 6,364 seat belt checkpoints were held, and 58,883 citations for not using belts along with 3,728 citations for not using child safety seats were issued at these checkpoints and by patrols. Driver belt use increased from 64% before the program to 80% in November 1993, dropped to 73% by May 1994, and then rose slightly higher to 81% in August 1994. Based on time-series analyses, it is estimated that 45 more fatalities and 320 additional serious injuries would have occurred during the 6 months following the program than were actually observed. Using a model based on the costs of medical care and emergency services, these estimated injury reductions translate to medical care cost savings of more than

Seat belt use laws and occupant crash protection in the United States.

7 million. To gauge public knowledge and opinion, several random digit telephone surveys were carried out following the two program blitzes. At least 75% of the respondents were aware of the program, and more than 85% of the total sample were in favor of such programs.

Shoulder belt use in four states with belt use laws

Current federal rule-making requires restraints such as air bags or automatic seat belts in new cars starting with model year 1987 unless states with two-thirds of the United States population enact seat belt use laws meeting certain criteria. Belt use laws have been enacted by 26 states and the District of Columbia as of July 1, 1986. The first laws to go into effect increased use from less than 20 per cent to 50-70 per cent in the first month; in most cases rates subsequently dropped to below 50 per cent. Texas has been an exception to this trend because it has had much tougher enforcement of its seat belt law than other states. This pattern is similar to the experience of Canadian provinces that passed laws in the mid-1970s; enforcement/publicity programs in Canada have produced belt use rates that are currently greater than 60 per cent. An enforcement program in Elmira, New York also increased use rates sharply. New York, which had the first and one of the strongest and most successful laws so far, had an estimated fatality reduction of 9 per cent during the first nine months of the law. It is likely that a 10 per cent reduction in fatalities is the maximum that can be expected from belt use laws without special enforcement efforts. Provision of automatic restraints in combination with belt use laws would greatly increase crash protection.

Underage drinking: frequency, consequences, and interventions.

Shoulder belt use was observed before and after belt use laws went into effect in New York, New Jersey, Illinois, and Texas. There were large increases in belt use rates in each state in the first month the laws were enforced. In the three states in which post-law observations were made more than once, belt use declined from the levels seen in the first month; rates generally dropped to less than 50 percent. This pattern of decline from initial use rates has also been found in other jurisdictions around the world. Combined enforcement and publicity campaigns have been shown to be capable of reversing this trend and to increase use rates to 65 percent or more. Such campaigns will be needed to maximize the effect of seat belt use laws in the United States.

Factors that drivers say motivate safe driving practices

Objectives: To examine the frequency of underage drinking, driving after drinking and alcohol-related crashes, trends in these behaviors, and promising interventions. Methods: We examined drinking and drinking- and-driving behaviors reported in the United States in the 2001 U.S. National Household Survey of Drug Abuse, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2001 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, the 1992 National Longitudinal Alcohol Epidemiologic Study, and the 1999 National Survey of Drinking and Driving conducted for the National Highway Traffic Administration. We also examined the 1999 European School Survey Project on Alcohol and Other Drugs. Alcohol-related fatal crashes were examined from the U.S. Fatality Analysis Reporting System. Evaluation of interventions to reduce teenage drinking and driving after drinking were reviewed. Results: In the United States, 19% of youth ages 12–20 consumed five or more drinks on an occasion in the past 30 days. Although European nations have lower legal drinking ages (16–18) than in the United States (21), similar proportions engage in underage drinking. In two-thirds of European countries, a greater percentage of 15–16 year-olds drank five or more drinks on an occasion in the past month than in the United States. In both the United States and Europe, the earlier people begin to drink, the greater the likelihood of developing alcohol dependence and other alcohol-related problems, including alcohol-related crash involvement, during adolescence and adult years. During the past 20 years alcohol-related traffic deaths among people younger than 21 have been cut in half in the United States, but progress has halted since 1995 and the problem is still large. Interventions shown by research to reduce alcohol-related crashes among youth include raising the legal drinking age to 21, zero tolerance laws, and some interventions that are family, school, or community based. Conclusions: Despite research showing that a variety of interventions can reduce underage drinking and alcohol-related crash fatalities, the frequency of these behaviors remains high and the average age of drinking initiation is declining in the United States. Efforts are needed to enhance publicized enforcement of underage drinking laws. Comprehensive community interventions that include enforcement of these laws also are needed.

SEAT BELT USE LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PUBLICITY IN ELMIRA, NEW YORK: A REMINDER CAMPAIGN

This national survey was designed to identify factors that motivate safe driving behaviors and to determine how people rate the safety of their driving. It was found that drivers tended to rate themselves above average in terms of being safe drivers. Negative consequences such as the potential for a car crash and increase in car insurance were cited as important factors in increasing concern for safe driving. It was concluded that increased enforcement and awareness of negative outcomes may be effective in promoting safe driving practices.

The use of feedback signs to increase observed daytime seat belt use in two cities in North Carolina

A three-week belt use law publicity and enforcement campaign in Elmira, New York, in November 1985, increased use from 49 per cent to 77 per cent; four months later belt use was 66 per cent. A reminder program, in April 1986, increased belt use to 80 per cent; use declined to 69 per cent four months later and to 60 per cent eight months later. Throughout these periods, belt use in Glens Falls, a comparison community, remained stable at just over 40 per cent.

Seat belt use among New York bar patrons

Well publicized enforcement programs in North Carolina have raised seat belt use to about 80%. In an effort to find techniques to raise belt use further, signs providing feedback to drivers on belt use rates were introduced in two communities, Asheboro (population 18,000) and Greensboro (population 183,000). Feedback signs remind motorists about belt use and imply a constant and vigorous enforcement presence. The signs were prominently posted by the roadside at high volume locations; belt use information was changed weekly based on observational surveys. Observed daytime driver belt use in Asheboro increased from an average of 75% before the signs to 89% after the signs were established. At urban sites in Greensboro, driver belt use increased from 80% to 86%. Right front passenger belt use increased significantly in Asheboro but not in Greensboro. There were no changes in belt use at two interstate exit sites in Greensboro. Reasons for the differential success rates may relate to differences in initial belt use rates, community size, amount of publicity, and numbers of encounters with the signs. It is clear, however, that feedback signs can be an important supplement to belt use enforcement programs.

Effectiveness of Behavioral Highway Safety Countermeasures

Shoulder belt use among late night bar patrons in southeastern New York was observed during May–July of 1985, approximately six months after the effective date of New Yorks mandatory seat belt use law. About 25 percent of the drivers observed entering and leaving bar parking lots were wearing shoulder belts compared with 36 percent of other drivers observed at nearby locations during the same night hours; during daylight hours at the nearby locations, 43 percent of drivers wore shoulder belts. The lower belt use by bar patrons was apparently not attributable to impaired judgment caused by alcohol consumption because belt use was similar when entering and leaving the bar. Bar patrons were more likely than other drivers to have driving records with crashes and/or convictions. Their failure to comply with seat belt use law to the same extent as populations with lower crash risks reduces the laws potential effectiveness. It is possible that special seat belt law enforcement efforts during night hours could increase the belt use of this high crash-risk population and, at the same time, provide an opportunity for police to screen for alcohol impairment.

Development and evaluation of pilot programs to increase seat belt use in North Carolina

This report presents the findings of a research project to develop a framework and guidance for estimating the costs and benefits of emerging, experimental, untried, or unproven behavioral highway safety countermeasures. This report will be of particular interest to safety practitioners responsible for the development and implementation of the states Strategic Highway Safety Plan.