Is seat belt usage by front seat passengers related to seat belt usage by their drivers?

INTRODUCTION: Unrestrained drivers and passengers are involved in a significant amount of fatalities and injuries in motor-vehicle crashes in the United States. While the literature documents the effectiveness of seat belt usage in reducing crash outcomes, such as fatalities and the severity of injuries, there is a need to evaluate the impact of seat belt usage by drivers and passengers in their respective vehicles. These findings could help develop effective education and enforcement strategies to enhance occupant safety. METHOD: This paper summarizes a study comparing seat belt usage rates of drivers and passengers based on whether or not the driver uses a seat belt. Observational data from 50 sites in the state of Nevada over 3 years are used for analyses. The data are stratified based on the gender of the driver and passengers in the front seat of the vehicle and are based on area type (rural or urban). RESULTS: A comparison of the rates of seat belt usage across for the aggregated data and for various types of disaggregation and statistical analyses to compare the rates of seat belt use among passengers based on the use of seat belts by drivers confirms that when drivers use seat belts, their respective passengers are much more likely to use seat belts. Further, if drivers do not use seat belts, their passengers are not likely to use seat belts. This observation is comparable for male drivers and female drivers, and also for male passengers and female passengers. Further, there are no differences for combinations of the genders of the drivers and passenger (i.e., both male or female, or one male and one female). IMPACT ON INDUSTRY: These results suggest that education and enforcement strategies would benefit most by working toward increasing seat belt usage rates among drivers.     

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.     

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.     

Factors related to seat belt use among fatally injured teenage drivers

PROBLEM: In the United States, teenage drivers have a higher crash risk and lower observed seat belt use than other age groups. METHOD: Seat belt use was examined for teenage (16-19 years) drivers who were fatally injured in traffic crashes occurring in the United States during the years 1995-2000. Vehicle, driver, and crash factors potentially related to belt use were examined. State differences in belt use rates among fatally injured teenage drivers were related to states' observed belt use rates for all ages and other state-level variables. RESULTS: During 1995-2000, mean belt use was 36% among fatally injured teenage drivers and 23% among fatally injured teenage passengers. One of the strongest predictors of higher belt use for both drivers and passengers was whether the crash occurred in a state with a primary seat belt law. Belt use rates for 1995-2000 for fatally injured teenage drivers ranged from 20% or less in six states to more than 60% in two states. States with the highest use rates were those with strong primary belt use laws and those with high rates of observed belt use for all ages. Lower belt use among fatally injured teenage drivers was associated with increasing age; male drivers; drivers of SUVs, vans, or pickup trucks rather than cars; older vehicles; crashes occurring late at night; crashes occurring on rural roadways; single vehicle crashes; and drivers with BACs of 0.10 or higher. Teenage driver belt use declined as the number of teenage passengers increased, but increased in the presence of at least one passenger 30 years or older. IMPACT ON TRAFFIC SAFETY: It is suggested that to increase teenage belt use, states should enact strong primary belt use laws and mount highly publicized efforts to enforce these laws. Graduated driver licensing systems should incorporate strong provisions that require seat belt use by teenage drivers and passengers.     

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.     

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.     

Taxi driver seat belt wearing in Nanjing, China

Objective

To determine and validate patterns of seat belt use and attitudes of taxi drivers on wearing a seat belt following national and provincial seat belt legislation in 2004-2005. Design: Roadside daylight seat belt observation and interview survey methods were used, as well as observations from inside taxis during routine trips and a taxi driver focus group. The setting was Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, PR China in April of 2006 and 2007.

Main outcome measures

Prevalence of seat belt use and attitudes to wearing a seat belt were determined, as were vehicle and driver characteristics, and comparisons with other motor-vehicle driver's seat belt use and attitudes.

Results

Taxi drivers interviewed were predominantly male and aged 30-39 years. They spent more hours per week in their vehicles and had more driving experience than other drivers. Over half (56.2%) of taxi drivers interviewed reported that they always wore seat belts, while observation of taxi drivers showed lower wearing rates (i.e., roadside observation was 43.8%, and observation from inside taxis was 36.2%). Belt tampering was a practice of 12-15% of taxi drivers. “Fine avoidance, safety, high speed and long trips” were given as important reasons for wearing and “feeling trapped and uncomfortable” for not wearing. Seat belt reminder signs in taxis were common (82.6% of taxis), but did not appear to impact on driver seat belt use.

Conclusion

The four research methods found taxi drivers to have consistently low “correct wearing” rates.

Impact on industry

As in several other countries, taxi drivers are particularly resistant to seat belt use. Innovative strategies, including occupational health and safety approaches, may be required to achieve increased levels of seat belt use.     

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%.     

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.     

Self-reported factors that influence rear seat belt use among adults

Introduction: While seat belt use among front seat occupants has significantly increased overtime a substantial usage gap still exists between front and back seat occupants. This study aims to identify factors that predict rear seat belt use among adult back seat passengers. Methods: We examined data from the 2016 Motor Vehicle Occupant Safety Survey, conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, to determine the influence of front seat belt use, support of and belief of rear seat belt use laws, peer perception of seat belt use, nighttime belt use, and demographic factors on self-reported rear seat belt use. Rao-Scott chi-squared tests were used to determine significant associations between self-reported rear belt use and each predictor. Multivariate logistic regression was used to calculate adjusted odds ratios and determine the influence of significant predictors on rear seat belt use. Sampling weights were applied to produce nationally representative estimates; all statistical significance tests accounted for the complex survey design. Results: Among adults who reported riding in the back seat, 63% reported always using a rear seat belt. Front seat belt use, support and belief of state seat belt laws, nighttime seat belt use, age, and education were significantly associated with rear seat belt use. Multivariate regression results showed that adults who supported rear seat belt laws, reported front seat belt use and believed their state has a rear seat belt law were significantly more likely to report full-time use in the back seat. Conclusions: Seat belt laws and front seat belt use had the strongest association with reporting full-time use in the back seat. Practical Applications: Increasing familiarity with existing laws directed towards rear seat belt use as well as increasing awareness about the benefits of seat belts in all seating positions may help improve rear seat belt use.     

Comparison of mid-block and intersection-related left turn collisions

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the factors that might influence an occupant's injury severity during a left turn movement. METHODS: We used the National Automotive Sampling System Crashworthiness Data System (1995-2005) to compare crash characteristics and injury outcome between intersection and midblock left turn collisions. RESULTS: A total of 7,396 collisions were evaluated. Traffic control devices were present in 82% of intersection and 10% of mid-block collisions. After adjustment for potential confounding variables, drivers' injury severity was not significantly associated with the crash location. However, front seat passengers in mid-block collisions had 72% higher odds of experiencing an injury with injury severity score > or =9 (odds ratio: 1.72, 95% confidence interval: 1.09-2.69). Our analysis did not show that drivers or passengers in larger vehicles, e.g., sport utility vehicles and mini-vans, were at lower risk of more severe injuries in comparison to the car occupants in sedans. CONCLUSION: We found that in comparison to intersection-related left turn collisions, mid-block crashes are associated with more severe injuries for front seat passengers. Furthermore, size of the turning vehicle was not significantly associated with injury severity for drivers or front seat passengers.     

Requiring belt use as part of a school parking permit program: does it increase students' belt use?

OBJECTIVE: Teenagers have very high motor vehicle crash rates, and their use of seat belts is generally lower than that of adults. A potential school-based strategy to increase teenagers' belt use is a policy making parking privileges contingent on belt use by student drivers and their passengers. This study evaluated the effects of implementing a school belt policy. METHODS: The effects of a belt policy were evaluated during the 2003-2004 school year at high schools in two states: Connecticut, a state with a primary enforcement belt law and high belt use rates, and Mississippi, a state with a secondary enforcement law and generally low use rates. Both schools enforced the policy, and violations resulted in a graduated set of penalties leading to the potential loss of parking privileges. Baseline and post-policy belt use rates were obtained from observation surveys of student drivers and their teenage passengers coming to and from school. Changes in belt use were examined relative to belt use trends at comparison schools without a belt policy. Implementation of the policies also was monitored. RESULTS: In Mississippi, among students arriving at school in the morning, driver belt use increased from 42% before the policy to 67% about 6 months after; passenger belt use increased from 16% to 61%, although sample sizes were small. These increases were significantly larger than expected, based on belt use trends at the comparison school in Mississippi. In Connecticut, where 86% of drivers and 79% of their passengers already were belted prior to the policy, there was no significant change. Both schools publicized and monitored the belt policy, and most enforcement occurred in the morning as students arrived at school. CONCLUSIONS: Based on a small-scale application of a belt policy at two schools in different states, a school belt policy may have stronger effects in states where belt use is low. Strong penalties and enforcement are essential elements of an effective policy. Adequate resources and commitment are needed for schools to implement and monitor the type of strong policy needed to sustain high belt use rates. Replication of this study in additional schools appears warranted.     

The safety implications of vehicle seat adjustments

INTRODUCTION: The goal of this study was to gather information on the preferred front seat position of vehicle occupants and to determine the impact of variation in seat position on safety during crashes. METHOD: The study evaluated the relationship between seat position and occupant size using the chi-square test and compared the risk of severe injury for small females and large males with regard to forward and rearward seat position using logistic regression. RESULTS: While smaller drivers sat closer to the steering wheel than larger drivers, front passengers of all sizes used similar seat positions. Additionally, the risk of injury was higher for small, unbelted females in rearward seat positions and large males (belted and unbelted) in forward seat positions. CONCLUSIONS: Occupants who adjust their seats to positions that are not consistent with required federal tests are at a greater risk for severe injury in a crash.     

Effectiveness and driver acceptance of the Honda belt reminder system

OBJECTIVE: Prior research suggests that vehicle-based seat belt reminder systems can produce moderate increases in belt use rates. However, these findings were based on a limited set of Ford vehicles in one geographic location. As more vehicles with reminder systems enter the market, it is important to determine their effectiveness as well as acceptance by consumers. The present study investigated the effectiveness of Honda's belt reminder system. METHODS: Driver belt use was observed unobtrusively as drivers brought their Honda vehicles to dealerships for service. Drivers also were asked to complete a mail-in survey designed to elicit their experience with the system. RESULTS: Belt use was significantly higher among drivers of vehicles with belt reminders compared with drivers of vehicles without reminders (90 vs. 84 percent). Use rates in vehicles with reminders were higher among both male and female drivers and in all vehicle types observed. Drivers of the Honda vehicles with belt reminders viewed the system very favorably, and nearly 90 percent said they would want one in their next vehicle. The reminder was perceived to be most effective by part-time belt users; 81 percent of part-time users said they now use belts more often, compared with 32 percent of respondents who said they always use belts and 18 percent who use belts occasionally. CONCLUSION: Belt reminders in Honda as well as Ford vehicles are increasing. Although the increase is moderate (5.6 percentage points), on a national level it could have prevented at least 736 driver deaths in 2004.     

Impact of primary safety belt laws on alcohol-related front-seat occupant fatalities: five case studies

OBJECTIVE: Impaired drivers and other high-risk road users are less likely to use their safety belts, thus increasing the risk of fatal injury in the event of a crash. Although safety belt laws have been shown to increase wearing rates for daytime non-crash-involved drivers and their front-seat passengers, little evidence is available on the effect these laws have on belt usage by crash-involved drinking drivers and their passengers. METHODS: This study evaluated the influence of primary safety belt law upgrades from secondary laws on front-seat occupants of passenger cars driven by drinking drivers in fatal crashes in five states: California, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, and Washington. The outcome measures used to evaluate these law upgrades were (1) the change in safety belt usage rates of front-seat occupants in passenger cars driven by drinking drivers in fatal crashes and (2) the change in alcohol-related front-seat occupant fatalities in passenger cars driven by drinking drivers. RESULTS: Four of the five states demonstrated increases in safety belt use by front-seat occupants of passenger cars of drinking drivers in fatal crashes following the upgrade to primary safety belt laws. Three states (California, Michigan, and Washington) experienced significant reductions in the number of front-seat occupant fatalities in vehicles driven by drinking drivers. CONCLUSIONS: The adoption of primary law upgrades was associated with significant increases in safety belt use (four of five states) and significant reductions in fatalities among high-risk occupants (i.e., front-seat occupants involved in fatal crashes in vehicles driven by drinking drivers) in three of the five states studied.     

Restraint use in the Eastern Province of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Objectives: This study set out to examine seat belt and child restraint use in the Dammam Municipality of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, based on the premise that an increase in seat belt use would significantly reduce personal injury in traffic crashes. It was expected that local data would help identify intervention strategies necessary to improve seat belt use in the region.

Methods: The research involved 2 methodologies. First, 1,389 face-to-face interviews were conducted with male and female adults in regional shopping plazas regarding their own and their children's restraint use in their vehicles and reasons for these attitudes and beliefs. Second, 2 on-road observation studies of adult and child restraint use were conducted by trained observers. Occupants of approximately 5,000 passenger vehicles were observed while stopped at representative signalized traffic intersections.

Results: The findings showed front seat belt use rates of between 43 and 47% for drivers and 26 to 30% for front seat passengers; rear seat belt use rates were lower. While there seemed to be some knowledge about the purpose and reasons for restraining both adults and children in suitable restraints, this failed to be confirmed in the on-road observations.

Conclusions: Reasons for these rates and findings are discussed fully, and recommendations for improving seat belt use in the Dammam Municipality are included.     

Posture and belt fit in reclined passenger seats

Abstract

Objective: Highly reclined postures may be common among passengers in future automated vehicles. A laboratory study was conducted to address the need for posture and belt fit in these seating configurations.

Methods: In a laboratory vehicle mockup, the postures of 24 men and women with a wide range of body size were measured in a typical front vehicle seat at seat back angles of 23°, 33°, 43°, and 53°. Data were gathered with and without a sitter-adjusted headrest. Posture was characterized by the locations of skeletal joint centers estimated from digitized surface landmarks.

Results: Regression analysis demonstrated that the pelvis rotated rearward and lumbar spine flexion decreased with increasing recline. The lap portion of the 3-point belt was more rearward relative to the pelvis in more-reclined postures, and the torso portion crossed the clavicle closer to the midline of the body. Regression equations were developed to predict posture and belt fit variables as a function of passenger characteristics, seat back angle, and the use of the headrest.

Conclusions: Spine posture changes as the torso reclines in an automotive seat, and belt fit is altered by the change in posture. The results can be used to accurately position crash test dummies and computation human models and to guide the design of belt restraints.     

The use of seat belts in cars with smart seat belt reminders--results of an observational study

Recently, smart seat belt reminders (SBR) have been introduced in cars. By increasingly reminding drivers and passengers if they are not using the seat belt, the intention is to increase the belt use to almost 100%. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to study if there were differences in driver's seat belt use between cars with and without SBR. METHODS: Drivers of cars with and without SBR were observed concerning seat belt use. The case (cars with SBR) and the control group (cars without SBR) were similar in all major aspects except SBR. In all, more than 3,000 drivers were observed in five cities in Sweden. RESULTS: In cars without SBR, 82.3 percent of the drivers used the seat belt, while in cars with SBR, the seat belt use was 98.9 percent. The difference was significant. In cars with mild reminders, the use was 93.0 percent. CONCLUSION: It is concluded, that if the results can be generalised to the whole car population this would have a dramatic impact on the number of fatally and seriously injured car occupants.     

Effect of enhanced seat belt reminders on driver fatality risk

Objective

Enhanced seat belt reminders in automobiles have been shown to increase belt use rates by approximately 3 percentage points. The objective of this study was to estimate the effect of enhanced seat belt reminders on driver fatality risk.

Method

Data included all passenger vehicle driver deaths and vehicle registration counts in the United States for calendar years 2000-2007. Driver fatality rates per vehicle registration per year were compared for otherwise identical vehicle models with and without enhanced seat belt reminders.

Results

Driver fatality rates were 6% lower for vehicles with enhanced seat belt reminders compared with vehicles without enhanced belt reminders. After adjusting for vehicle age differences, the estimated effect of enhanced belt reminders on driver fatality risk ranged from a 9% reduction for General Motors vehicles to a 2% increase for Honda vehicles. Combining all manufacturers, enhanced belt reminders reduced fatality risk by approximately 2%. Although not statistically significant, the 2% reduction in fatality risk agrees with what should be expected from a 3 percentage point increase in seat belt use rates.

Conclusions

Enhanced seat belt reminders have raised driver belt use rates and reduced fatality rates, but more aggressive systems may be needed for some drivers. It can be inferred that nonfatal injury rates also have been reduced.

Impact on Industry

Manufacturers should be encouraged to put enhanced seat belt reminders on all vehicles as soon as possible.