Predictors of rear seat belt use among U.S. adults, 2012

IntroductionSeat belt use reduces the risk of injuries and fatalities among motor vehicle occupants in a crash, but belt use in rear seating positions is consistently lower than front seating positions. Knowledge is limited concerning factors associated with seat belt use among adult rear seat passengers.MethodsData from the 2012 ConsumerStyles survey were used to calculate weighted percentages of self-reported rear seat belt use by demographic characteristics and type of rear seat belt use enforcement. Multivariable regression was used to calculate prevalence ratios for rear seat belt use, adjusting for person-, household- and geographic-level demographic variables as well as for type of seat belt law in place in the state.ResultsRear seat belt use varied by age, race, geographic region, metropolitan status, and type of enforcement. Multivariable regression showed that respondents living in states with primary (Adjusted Prevalence Ratio (APR): 1.23) and secondary (APR: 1.11) rear seat belt use enforcement laws were significantly more likely to report always wearing a seat belt in the rear seat compared with those living in a state with no rear seat belt use enforcement law.Conclusions and practical applicationsSeveral factors were associated with self-reported seat belt use in rear seating positions. Evidence suggests that primary enforcement covering all seating positions is an effective intervention that can be employed to increase seat belt use and in turn prevent motor vehicle injuries to rear-seated occupants.     

Belief about seat belt use and seat belt wearing behavior among front and rear seat passengers in the United States

Introduction: Unrestrained drivers and passengers represent almost half of all passenger vehicle occupant deaths in the United States. The current study assessed the relationship between the belief about importance of seat belt use and the behavior of always wearing a seat belt. Method: Data from 2012 ConsumerStyles were analyzed separately for front and rear passenger seating positions. Multivariable regression models were constructed to identify the association between seat belt belief and behavior (i.e., always wears seat belt) among adults. Models controlled for type of state seat belt law (primary, secondary, or none). Results: Seat belt use was higher in front passenger seats (86.1%) than in rear passenger seats (61.6%). Similarly, belief that seat belt use was very important was higher in reference to the front passenger seat (84.2%) versus the rear passenger seat (70.5%). For the front passenger seat, belief was significantly associated with seat belt use in states with both primary enforcement laws (adjPR 1.64) and secondary enforcement laws (adjPR 2.77). For the rear passenger seat, belief was also significantly associated with seat belt use, and two 2-way interactions were observed (belief by sex, belief by region). Conclusions: Despite overall high rates of seat belt use in the United States, certain groups are less likely to buckle up than others. The study findings suggest that efforts to increase seat belt use among high-risk populations, such as those who live in states with secondary or no seat belt laws and those who ride in rear seats (which include people who utilize taxis or ride-hailing vehicles) could benefit from interventions designed to strengthen beliefs related to the benefits of seat belt use. Practical applications: Future research that uses a theoretical framework to better understand the relationship between beliefs and behavior may inform interventions to improve seat belt use.     

Passenger use of and attitudes toward rear seat belts

Objectives: This study sought to identify attitudes toward belt use in the rear seat and to gain insight into the experiences of rear-seat passengers. Method: A telephone survey conducted between June and August 2016 targeted adult passengers who had recently ridden in the rear and who did not always wear their seat belt when doing so. Respondents were questioned regarding their reasons for not buckling up and possible conditions under which they would be more likely to buckle up during rear-seat travel. Results: Of 1163 recent rear-seat passengers, 72% reported always using their seat belt in the rear. Full-time belt use was lower among passengers who primarily travel in the rear of hired vehicles compared with personal vehicles. The most common explanation for not buckling up was that the back seat is safer than the front. Four out of five agreed they do not buckle up because of type of trip; two-thirds forget or do not see the need; and two-thirds agreed with reasons related to design, comfort, or usability issues. Nearly 40% agreed that they sometimes do not buckle up in the rear because there is no law requiring it. Conclusion: Many reasons for not using belts in the rear are similar to reasons in the front, such as forgetfulness, inconvenience, or discomfort. One difference is that many rear-seat passengers perceive using the belt is unnecessary because the back seat is safer than the front. More than half of part-time belt users and nonusers reported interventions such as rear seat belt reminders, stronger belt-use laws, and more comfortable belts would make them more likely to use their seat belt in the rear seat. Practical applications: This study identifies barriers to rear seat belt use that point to the need for a multi-faceted approach to increase belt use.     

Factors contributing to serious and fatal injuries in belted rear seat occupants in frontal crashes

Abstract

Objectives: Earlier research has shown that the rear row is safer for occupants in crashes than the front row, but there is evidence that improvements in front seat occupant protection in more recent vehicle model years have reduced the safety advantage of the rear seat versus the front seat. The study objective was to identify factors that contribute to serious and fatal injuries in belted rear seat occupants in frontal crashes in newer model year vehicles.

Methods: A case series review of belted rear seat occupants who were seriously injured or killed in frontal crashes was conducted. Occupants in frontal crashes were eligible for inclusion if they were 6 years old or older and belted in the rear of a 2000 or newer model year passenger vehicle within 10 model years of the crash year. Crashes were identified using the 2004–2015 National Automotive Sampling System Crashworthiness Data System (NASS-CDS) and included all eligible occupants with at least one Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 3 or greater injury. Using these same inclusion criteria but split into younger (6 to 12 years) and older (55+ years) cohorts, fatal crashes were identified in the 2014–2015 Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and then local police jurisdictions were contacted for complete crash records.

Results: Detailed case series review was completed for 117 rear seat occupants: 36 with Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (MAIS) 3+ injuries in NASS-CDS and 81 fatalities identified in FARS. More than half of the injured and killed rear occupants were more severely injured than front seat occupants in the same crash. Serious chest injury, primarily caused by seat belt loading, was present in 22 of the injured occupants and 17 of the 37 fatalities with documented injuries. Nine injured occupants and 18 fatalities sustained serious head injury, primarily from contact with the vehicle interior or severe intrusion. For fatal cases, 12 crashes were considered unsurvivable due to a complete loss of occupant space. For cases considered survivable, intrusion was not a large contributor to fatality.

Discussion: Rear seat occupants sustained serious and fatal injuries due to belt loading in crashes in which front seat occupants survived, suggesting a discrepancy in restraint performance between the front and rear rows. Restraint strategies that reduce loading to the chest should be considered, but there may be potential tradeoffs with increased head excursion, particularly in the absence of rear seat airbags. Any new restraint designs should consider the unique needs of the rear seat environment.     

State-level seat belt use in the United States, 2011–2016: Comparison of self-reported with observed use and use by fatally injured occupants

Introduction: Despite 49 states and the District of Columbia having seat belt laws that permit either primary or secondary enforcement, nearly half of persons who die in passenger vehicle crashes in the United States are unbelted. Monitoring seat belt use is important for measuring the effectiveness of strategies to increase belt use. Objective: Document self-reported seat belt use by state seat belt enforcement type and compare 2016 self-reported belt use with observed use and use among passenger vehicle occupant (PVO) fatalities. Methods: We analyzed the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) self-reported seat belt use data during 2011–2016. The Pearson correlation coefficient (r) was used to compare the 2016 BRFSS state estimates with observed seat belt use from state-based surveys and with unrestrained PVO fatalities from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System. Results: During 2011–2016, national self-reported seat belt use ranged from 86–88%. In 2016, national self-reported use (87%) lagged observed use (90%) by 3 percentage points. By state, the 2016 self-reported use ranged from 64% in South Dakota to 93% in California, Hawaii, and Oregon. Seat belt use averaged 7 percentage points higher in primary enforcement states (89%) than in secondary states (82%). Self-reported state estimates were strongly positively correlated with state observational estimates (r = 0.80) and strongly negatively correlated with the proportion of unrestrained PVO fatalities (r = −0.77). Conclusion: National self-reported seat belt use remained essentially stable during 2011–2016 at around 87%, but large variations existed across states. Practical Applications: If seat belt use in secondary enforcement states matched use in primary enforcement states for 2016, an additional 3.98 million adults would have been belted. Renewed attention to increasing seat belt use will be needed to reduce motor-vehicle fatalities. Self-reported and observational seat belt data complement one another and can aid in designing targeted and multifaceted interventions.     

Evaluation of the Reading, PA nighttime safety belt enforcement campaign: September 2004

PROBLEM: Safety belt use rates among front seat occupants of passenger vehicles are substantially lower at night than during the day despite the fact that night driving is more dangerous. METHOD: Recent advances in night vision equipment now make it possible to enforce belt use laws in darkness. Reading, Pennsylvania conducted a night belt use publicity and enforcement campaign during September 2004 using night vision equipment. RESULTS: Front seat occupant belt use at night increased significantly from 50% prior to the campaign to 56% just after the campaign. Daylight belt use also increased though to a lesser extent (56% to 59%). Survey data indicated that motorists had heard about the campaign in newspapers and on television. Belt use increases were not seen during the same time period in a comparison community.     

Connecticut nighttime safety belt use

Problem

Safety belt use in the United States, as measured over daylight hours, has risen steadily over recent years reaching 80% in 2004. Yet, using the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), safety belt use among fatally injured front seat outboard occupants of passenger vehicles was only between 42% and 46% for the years 1999 to 2003. One possible contributing factor is that safety belt use at night, when crash rates are highest, is lower than during the day.

Method

A full statewide nighttime belt use observation survey was conducted in 2004. This survey was conducted simultaneously with Connecticut's annual full statewide daytime belt use survey. Night belt use observations of drivers and passengers are possible using newly available near military grade night vision goggles and handheld infrared spotlights. Both day and goggle-assisted night observations were conducted at 100 observation sites in Connecticut. Procedures for day and night observations were as nearly identical as possible.

Results

The night belt use rate was 6.4 percentage points lower than the day rate (83.0 vs. 76.6). Consistent with belt use among Connecticut fatalities, day versus night differences were greatest in urban areas. There was evidence that day versus night differences were greater before as compared to after a May 2004 belt use enforcement program.     

Association Between NCAP Ratings and Real-World Rear Seat Occupant Risk of Injury

Objective: Several studies have evaluated the correlation between U.S. or Euro New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) ratings and injury risk to front seat occupants, in particular driver injuries. Conversely, little is known about whether NCAP 5-star ratings predict real-world risk of injury to restrained rear seat occupants. The NHTSA has identified rear seat occupant protection as a specific area under consideration for improvements to its NCAP. In order to inform NHTSA's efforts, we examined how NCAP's current 5-star rating system predicts risk of moderate or greater injury among restrained rear seat occupants in real-world crashes.

Methods: We identified crash-involved vehicles, model year 2004–2013, in NASS-CDS (2003–2012) with known make and model and nonmissing occupant information. We manually matched these vehicles to their NCAP star ratings using data on make, model, model year, body type, and other identifying information. The resultant linked NASS-CDS and NCAP database was analyzed to examine associations between vehicle ratings and rear seat occupant injury risk; risk to front seat occupants was also estimated for comparison. Data were limited to restrained occupants and occupant injuries were defined as any injury with a maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) score of 2 or greater.

Results: We linked 95% of vehicles in NASS-CDS to a specific vehicle in NCAP. The 18,218 vehicles represented an estimated 6 million vehicles with over 9 million occupants. Rear seat passengers accounted for 12.4% of restrained occupants. The risk of injury in all crashes for restrained rear seat occupants was lower in vehicles with a 5-star driver rating in frontal impact tests (1.4%) than with 4 or fewer stars (2.6%, P =.015); results were similar for the frontal impact passenger rating (1.3% vs. 2.4%, P =.024). Conversely, side impact driver and passenger crash tests were not associated with rear seat occupant injury risk (driver test: 1.7% for 5-star vs. 1.8% for 1–4 stars; passenger test: 1.6% for 5 stars vs 1.8% for 1–4 stars).

Conclusions: Current frontal impact test procedures provide some degree of discrimination in real-world rear seat injury risk among vehicles with 5 compared to fewer than 5 stars. However, there is no evidence that vehicles with a 5-star side impact passenger rating, which is the only crash test procedure to include an anthropomorphic test dummy (ATD) in the rear, demonstrate lower risks of injury in the rear than vehicles with fewer than 5 stars. These results support prioritizing modifications to the NCAP program that specifically evaluate rear seat injury risk to restrained occupants of all ages.     

Nighttime seat belt use among front seat passengers: Does the driver's belt use matter?

Introduction and Method: We explored the relationship between nighttime seat belt use of right-front passengers and their drivers using observational data from 33,310 vehicles in east Tennessee during March 2015 – May 2017. Results: Overall, nighttime passenger seat belt use varied by 50 percentage points from 92% when drivers were belted to 42% when drivers were not belted, suggesting that part-time seat belt users can be heavily influenced by the seat belt status of their traveling companions. When stratified by vehicle type and sex, passenger seat belt use by driver seat belt status varied as much as 74 percentage points from 96% to 22%. Passenger seat belt use was typically lower when riding with unbelted same-sex drivers than when riding with unbelted drivers of the opposite sex. Conclusions and Practical Applications: This finding suggests that the role of peer influence in decision-making about seat belt use may differ depending on the sex of a vehicle driver and his or her passengers. Further research is warranted to explore this finding as well as other social and cultural influences that have not been fully examined in seat belt research.     

Driver and front passenger injury in frontal crashes: Update on the effect of unbelted rear occupants

Purpose: This is a study of the influence of an unbelted rear occupant on the risk of severe injury to the front seat occupant ahead of them in frontal crashes. It provides an update to earlier studies.

Methods: 1997–2015 NASS-CDS data were used to investigate the risk for severe injury (Maximum Abbreviated Injury Score [MAIS] 4+F) to belted drivers and front passengers in frontal crashes by the presence of a belted or unbelted passenger seated directly behind them or without a rear passenger. Frontal crashes were identified with GAD1 = F without rollover (rollover ≤ 0). Front and rear outboard occupants were included without ejection (ejection = 0). Injury severity was defined by MAIS and fatality (F) by TREATMNT = 1 or INJSEV = 4. Weighted data were determined. The risk for MAIS 4+F was determined using the number of occupants with known injury status MAIS 0+F. Standard errors were determined.

Results: The risk for severe injury was 0.803 ± 0.263% for the driver with an unbelted left rear occupant and 0.100 ± 0.039% with a belted left rear occupant. The driver's risk was thus 8.01 times greater with an unbelted rear occupant than with a belted occupant (P <.001). With an unbelted right rear occupant behind the front passenger, the risk for severe injury was 0.277 ± 0.091% for the front passenger. The corresponding risk was 0.165 ± 0.075% when the right rear occupant was belted. The front passenger's risk was 1.68 times greater with an unbelted rear occupant behind them than a belted occupant (P <.001). The driver's risk for MAIS 4+F was highest when their seat was deformed forward. The risk was 9.94 times greater with an unbelted rear occupant than with a belted rear occupant when the driver's seat deformed forward. It was 13.4 ± 12.2% with an unbelted occupant behind them and 1.35 ± 0.95% with a belted occupant behind them.

Conclusions: Consistent with prior literature, seat belt use by a rear occupant significantly lowered the risk for severe injury to belted occupants seated in front of them. The reduction was greater for drivers than for front passengers. It was 87.5% for the driver and 40.6% for the front passenger. These results emphasize the need for belt reminders in all seating positions.     

Injuries in Full-Scale Vehicle Side Impact Moving Deformable Barrier and Pole Tests Using Postmortem Human Subjects

Objective: To conduct near-side moving deformable barrier (MDB) and pole tests with postmortem human subjects (PMHS) in full-scale modern vehicles, document and score injuries, and examine the potential for angled chest loading in these tests to serve as a data set for dummy biofidelity evaluations and computational modeling.

Methods: Two PMHS (outboard left front and rear seat occupants) for MDB and one PMHS (outboard left front seat occupant) for pole tests were used. Both tests used sedan-type vehicles from same manufacturer with side airbags. Pretest x-ray and computed tomography (CT) images were obtained. Three-point belt-restrained surrogates were positioned in respective outboard seats. Accelerometers were secured to T1, T6, and T12 spines; sternum and pelvis; seat tracks; floor; center of gravity; and MDB. Load cells were used on the pole. Biomechanical data were gathered at 20 kHz. Outboard and inboard high-speed cameras were used for kinematics. X-rays and CT images were taken and autopsy was done following the test. The Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 2005 scoring scheme was used to score injuries.

Results: MDB test: male (front seat) and female (rear seat) PMHS occupant demographics: 52 and 57 years, 177 and 166 cm stature, 78 and 65 kg total body mass. Demographics of the PMHS occupant in the pole test: male, 26 years, 179 cm stature, and 84 kg total body mass. Front seat PMHS in MDB test: 6 near-side rib fractures (AIS = 3): 160–265 mm vertically from suprasternal notch and 40–80 mm circumferentially from center of sternum. Left rear seat PMHS responded with multiple bilateral rib fractures: 9 on the near side and 5 on the contralateral side (AIS = 3). One rib fractured twice. On the near and contralateral sides, fractures were 30–210 and 20–105 mm vertically from the suprasternal notch and 90–200 and 55–135 mm circumferentially from the center of sternum. A fracture of the left intertrochanteric crest occurred (AIS = 3). Pole test PMHS had one near-side third rib fracture. Thoracic accelerations of the 2 occupants were different in the MDB test. Though both occupants sustained positive and negative x-accelerations to the sternum, peak magnitudes and relative changes were greater for the rear than the front seat occupant. Magnitudes of the thoracic and sternum accelerations were lower in the pole test.

Conclusions: This is the first study to use PMHS occupants in MDB and pole tests in the same recent model year vehicles with side airbag and head curtain restraints. Injuries to the unilateral thorax for the front seat PMHS in contrast to the bilateral thorax and hip for the rear seat occupant in the MDB test indicate the effects of impact on the seating location and restraint system. Posterolateral locations of fractures to the front seat PMHS are attributed to constrained kinematics of occupant interaction with torso side airbag restraint system. Angled loading to the rear seat occupant from coupled sagittal and coronal accelerations of the sternum representing anterior thorax loading contributed to bilateral fractures. Inward bending initiated by the distal femur complex resulting in adduction of ipsilateral lower extremity resulted in intertrochanteric fracture to the rear seat occupant. These results serve as a data set for evaluating the biofidelity of the WorldSID and federalized side impact dummies and assist in validating human body computational models, which are increasingly used in crashworthiness studies.     

The effects of persistent audible seat belt reminders and a speed-limiting interlock on the seat belt use of drivers who do not always use a seat belt

Introduction: Vehicle technologies that increase seat belt use can save thousands of lives each year. Kidd, Singer, Huey, and Kerfoot (2018) found that a gearshift interlock was more effective for increasing seat belt use than an intermittent audible reminder, but interlocks may not be more effective than persistent audible reminders lasting at least 90 seconds. Method: Forty-nine part-time belt users with a recent seat belt citation who self-reported not always using a seat belt drove two vehicles for 1 week each. Thirty-three drove a Chevrolet with an intermittent audible reminder followed by either a BMW with a persistent 90-second audible reminder (n = 17) or a Subaru with an incessant audible reminder (n = 16). The other 16 participants experienced the BMW persistent reminder followed by an interlock that limited speed to 15 mph during unbelted driving. These data were combined with data from 32 part-time belt users in Kidd et al. (2018) who experienced the intermittent reminder for 2 weeks or the intermittent reminder for 1 week and a gearshift interlock the next. Results: Relative to the intermittent reminder, seat belt use was significantly increased an estimated 30% by the BMW persistent reminder, 34% by the Subaru incessant reminder, and 33% by the speed-limiting interlock. Belt use was increased an estimated 16% by the gearshift interlock, but this change was not significant. More participants circumvented the speed-limiting interlock to drive unbelted than the audible reminders. Responses to a poststudy survey indicated that interlocks were less acceptable than reminders. Conclusions: Audible reminders lasting at least 90 seconds and a speed-limiting interlock were more effective for increasing seat belt use than an intermittent audible reminder, but reminders were found more acceptable. Practical applications: Strengthening existing U.S. safety standards to require audible reminders lasting at least 90 seconds for front-row occupants could save up to 1,489 lives annually.     

Teens and seat belt use: What makes them click?

ProblemMotor vehicle crashes kill more adolescents in the United States than any other cause, and often the teen is not wearing a seat belt.MethodsUsing data from the 2011 Youth Risk Behavior Surveys from 38 states, we examined teens' self-reported seat belt use while riding as a passenger and identified individual characteristics and environmental factors associated with always wearing a seat belt.ResultsOnly 51% of high school students living in 38 states reported always wearing a seat belt when riding as a passenger; prevalence varied from 32% in South Dakota to 65% in Delaware. Seat belt use was 11 percentage points lower in states with secondary enforcement seat belt laws compared to states with primary enforcement laws. Racial/ethnic minorities, teens living in states with secondary enforcement seat belt laws, and those engaged in substance use were least likely to always wear their seat belts. The likelihood of always being belted declined steadily as the number of substance use behaviors increased.DiscussionSeat belt use among teens in the United States remains unacceptably low. Results suggest that environmental influences can compound individual risk factors, contributing to even lower seat belt use among some subgroups.Practical applicationsThis study provides the most comprehensive state-level estimates to date of seat belt use among U.S. teens. This information can be useful when considering policy options to increase seat belt use and for targeting injury prevention interventions to high-risk teens. States can best increase teen seat belt use by making evidence-informed decisions about state policy options and prevention strategies.     

Seat Belt Use in States and Territories with Primary and Secondary Laws -- United States, 2006

Problem

Motor-vehicle crashes are a leading cause of death in the United States. In the event of a crash, seat belts are highly effective in preventing serious injury and death.

Methods

Data from the 2006 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System were used to calculate prevalence of seat belt use by state and territory and by type of state seat belt law (primary vs. secondary enforcement).

Results

In 2006, seat belt use among adults ranged from 58.3% to 91.9% in the states and territories. Seat belt use was 86.0% in states and territories with primary enforcement laws and 75.9% in states with secondary enforcement laws.

Discussion

Seat belt use continues to increase in the United States. Primary enforcement laws remain a more effective strategy than secondary enforcement laws in getting motor-vehicle occupants to wear their seat belts.     

The effect of a gearshift interlock on seat belt use by drivers who do not always use a belt and its acceptance among those who do

IntroductionSeat belts reduce the risk of fatal injury in a crash, yet in 2015, nearly 10,000 people killed in passenger vehicles were unrestrained. Enhanced seat belt reminders increase belt use, but a gearshift interlock that prevents the vehicle from being placed into gear unless the seat belt is used may prove more effective.MethodThirty-two people with a recent seat belt citation and who admitted to not always using a seat belt as a driver were recruited as part-time belt users and asked to evaluate two new vehicles. Sixteen drove two vehicles with an enhanced reminder for one week each, and 16 drove a vehicle with an enhanced reminder for one week and a vehicle with a gearshift interlock the following week. Sixteen full-time belt users who reported always using a seat belt drove a vehicle with a gearshift interlock for one week to evaluate acceptance.ResultsRelative to the enhanced reminder, the gearshift interlock significantly increased the likelihood that a part-time belt user used a belt during travel time in a trip by 21%, and increased the rate of belt use by 16%; this effect approached significance. Although every full-time belt user experienced the gearshift interlock, their acceptance of the technology reported in a post-study survey was fairly positive and not significantly different from part-time belt users. Six part-time belt users circumvented the gearshift interlock by sitting on a seat belt, waiting for the system to deactivate, or unbuckling during travel.ConclusionThe gearshift interlock increased the likelihood that part-time belt users buckled up and the rate of belt use during travel relative to the enhanced reminder but could be more effective if it prevented circumvention.Practical applicationsAn estimated 718–942 lives could be saved annually if the belt use of unbuckled drivers and front passengers increased 16–21%.     

A Simulation Study on the Efficacy of Advanced Belt Restraints to Mitigate the Effects of Obesity for Rear-Seat Occupant Protection in Frontal Crashes

Objective: Recent field data analyses have shown that the safety advantages of rear seats relative to the front seats have decreased in newer vehicles. Separately, the risks of certain injuries have been found to be higher for obese occupants. The objective of this study is to investigate the effects of advanced belt features on the protection of rear-seat occupants with a range of body mass index (BMI) in frontal crashes.

Methods: Whole-body finite element human models with 4 BMI levels (25, 30, 35, and 40 kg/m²) developed previously were used in this study. A total of 52 frontal crash simulations were conducted, including 4 simulations with a standard rear-seat, 3-point belt and 48 simulations with advanced belt features. The parameters varied in the simulations included BMI, load limit, anchor pretensioner, and lap belt routing relative to the pelvis. The injury measurements analyzed in this study included head and hip excursions, normalized chest deflection, and torso angle (defined as the angle between the hip–shoulder line and the vertical direction). Analyses of covariance were used to test the significance (P <.05) of the results.

Results: Higher BMI was associated with greater head and hip excursions and larger normalized chest deflection. Higher belt routing increased the hip excursion and torso angle, which indicates a higher submarining risk, whereas the anchor pretensioner reduced hip excursion and torso angle. Lower load limits decreased the normalized chest deflection but increased the head excursion. Normalized chest deflection had a positive correlation with maximum torso angle. Occupants with higher BMI have to use higher load limits to reach head excursions similar to those in lower BMI occupants.

Discussion and Conclusion: The simulation results suggest that optimizing load limiter and adding pretensioner(s) can reduce injury risks associated with obesity, but conflicting effects on head and chest injuries were observed. This study demonstrated the feasibility and importance of using human models to investigate protection for occupants with various BMI levels. A seat belt system capable of adapting to occupant size and body shape will improve protection for obese occupants in rear seats.     

Improving the Chest Protection of Elderly Occupants in Frontal Crashes Using SMART Load Limiters

Objective: To determine whether varying the seat belt load limiter (SBL) according to crash and occupant characteristics could have real-world injury reduction benefits in frontal impacts and, if so, to quantify those benefits.

Methods: Real-world UK accident data were used to identify the target population of vehicle occupants and frontal crash scenarios where improved chest protection could be most beneficial. Generic baseline driver and front passenger numerical models using a 50th percentile dummy were developed with MADYMO software. Simulations were performed where the load limiter threshold was varied in selected frontal impact scenarios. For each SBL setting, restraint performance, dummy kinematics, and injury outcome were studied in 5 different frontal impact types. Thoracic injury predictions were converted into injury probability values using Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 2+ age-dependent thoracic risk curves developed and validated based on a methodology proposed by Laituri et al. (2005). Real-world benefit was quantified using the predicted AIS 2+ risk and assuming that an appropriate adaptive system was fitted to all the cars in a real-world sample of recent frontal crashes involving European passenger cars.

Results: From the accident data sample the chest was the most frequently injured body region at an AIS 2+ level in frontal impacts (7% of front seat occupants). The proportion of older vehicle front seat occupants (>64 years) with AIS 2+ injury was also greater than the proportion of younger occupants. Additionally, older occupants were more likely to sustain seat belt–induced serious chest injury in low- and moderate-speed frontal crashes. In both front seating positions, the low SBL provided the best chest injury protection, without increasing the risk to other body regions. In severe impacts, the low SBL allowed the driver to move dangerously close to the steering wheel. Compared to the driver side, greater ride-down space on the passenger side gave a higher potential for using the low SBLs. When applying the AIS 2+ risk reduction findings to the weighted accident data sample, the risk of sustaining an AIS 2+ seat belt injury changed to 0.9, 4.9, and 8.1% for young, mid, and older occupants, respectively, from their actual injury risk of 1.3, 7.6, and 13.1%.

Conclusions: These results suggest the potential for improving the safety of older occupants with the development of smarter restraint systems. This is an important finding because the number of older users is expected to increase rapidly over the next 20 years. The greatest benefits were seen at lower crash severities. This is also important because most real-world crashes occur at lower speeds.     

The relationship between perceived risk of being ticketed and self-reported seat belt use

PROBLEM: Twenty-nine percent of Americans failed to use their seat belts in 2000. Efforts to improve safety belt usage can be enhanced by identifying specific factors that motivate belt use. METHOD: Motorist survey data were used to examine the effect of Perceived Risk of being Ticketed (PRT) for a seat belt infraction on self-reported seat belt use. RESULTS: Analyses indicated that individuals and groups of individuals who have higher PRT typically report higher belt usage. Factorial analyses indicated that this perceived risk to belt use relationship holds both within groups with generally high (e.g., upper income) and generally low (e.g. young men) overall self-reported belt use. DISCUSSION: Applications of PRT to improve seat belt use are discussed. IMPACT ON INDUSTRY: Enforcement of existing laws, perhaps through selective traffic enforcement programs, and strengthening laws to create a higher perception of being ticketed by motorists should increase safety belt use thereby saving lives and reducing cost for individuals, government, and industry.     

Determinants of seat belt use: A regression analysis with FARS data corrected for self-selection

IntroductionWe develop a methodology to use FARS data as an alternative to NOPUS in estimating seat belt usage. The advantages of using FARS over NOPUS are that (i) FARS is broader because it contains more variables relevant for policy analysis, (ii) FARS allows for easy multivariate regression analysis, and finally, (iii) FARS data is more cost-effective.MethodologyWe apply a binary logit model in our analysis to determine the likelihood of seat belt usage given various occupant, vehicle, and built environment characteristics. Using FARS data, we derive coefficient estimates for categories such as vehicle occupants' age and night time seat belt use that observational surveys like NOPUS cannot easily provide.ResultsOur results indicate that policies should focus on passengers (as opposed to drivers), male and young vehicle occupants, and that law enforcement should focus on pick-up trucks, rural roads, and nights. We find evidence that primary seat belt laws are effective.ConclusionsAlthough this is primarily a methodological paper, we present and discuss our results in the context of public policy so that our findings are relevant for road safety practitioners, researchers, and policymakers.     

Underutilization of occupant restraint systems in motor vehicle injury crashes: A quantitative analysis from Qatar

Introduction: Restraint systems (seat belts and airbags) are important tools that improve vehicle occupant safety during motor vehicle crashes (MVCs). We aimed to identify the pattern and impact of the utilization of passenger restraint systems on the outcomes of MVC victims in Qatar.

Methods: A retrospective study was conducted for all admitted patients who sustained MVC-related injuries between March 2011 and March 2014 inclusive.

Results: Out of 2,730 road traffic injury cases, 1,830 (67%) sustained MVC-related injuries, of whom 88% were young males, 70% were expatriates, and 53% were drivers. The use of seat belts and airbags was documented in 26 and 2.5% of cases, respectively. Unrestrained passengers had greater injury severity scores, longer hospital stays, and higher rates of pneumonia and mortality compared to restrained passengers (P = .001 for all). There were 311 (17%) ejected cases. Seat belt use was significantly lower and the mortality rate was 3-fold higher in the ejected group compared to the nonejected group (P = .001). The overall mortality was 8.3%. On multivariate regression analysis, predictors of not using a seat belt were being a front seat passenger, driver, or Qatari national and young age. Unrestrained males had a 3-fold increase in mortality in comparison to unrestrained females. The risk of severe injury (relative risk [RR] = 1.82, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.49–2.26, P = .001) and death (RR = 4.13, 95% CI, 2.31–7.38, P = .001) was significantly greater among unrestrained passengers.

Conclusion: The nonuse of seat belts is associated with worse outcomes during MVCs in Qatar. Our study highlights the lower rate of seat belt compliance in young car occupants that results in more severe injuries, longer hospital stays, and higher mortality rates. Therefore, we recommend more effective seat belt awareness and education campaigns, the enforcement of current seat belt laws, their extension to all vehicle occupants, and the adoption of proven interventions that will assure sustained behavioral changes toward improvements in seat belt use in Qatar.