Documenting the sustainability of a mature Click It or Ticket program: the North Carolina experience

North Carolina was the first United States jurisdiction to implement a statewide program (called Click It or Ticket) coupling concentrated enforcement with massive publicity to increase seat belt use. After a successful pilot program in three very different North Carolina communities, the statewide program was launched in October 1993, and has been most active and productive as well as imitated by many other states over the past decade. This paper explores the combination of ingredients that have been employed and sustained over that period of time. These include: (a) a basic coalition of critical public-private agencies (central to the planning, execution, and publicity of the many Click It or Ticket programs); (b) critical top-down commitments (starting with the governor); (c) pervasive and innovative media events/press releases/ PSAs/ web site information; (d) vigorous and well-publicized law enforcement; (e) feedback on results with solid, updated data; (f) related statewide and local programs/activities; and last but not least (g) continuous funding.     

Taking the Click It or Ticket model nationwide

Click It or Ticket is an occupant protection Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (sTEP) combining intensive paid and earned publicity with enforcement during a brief two to four week period. North Carolina demonstrated substantial increases in safety belt use associated with their implementation of the first statewide Click It or Ticket program in 1993. In 2000, Click It or Ticket was implemented in South Carolina. In 2001, Click It or Ticket was implemented across all eight states of the southeast. In 2002, ten states in various parts of the country implemented Click It or Ticket; four states implemented parts of the full Click It or Ticket program; and four states were used as comparisons. Belt use increases were greatest in the full implementation states. Click It or Ticket was implemented nationally in 2003. This paper presents a historical perspective on the implementation and evaluation of Click It or Ticket programs.     

A research agenda for increasing safety belt use in the United States

On November 13-14, 2003, a symposium on high-visibility safety belt use enforcement in Raleigh, NC: (a) celebrated the 10th anniversary of North Carolina's Click It or Ticket program; (b) documented current knowledge regarding safety belt use; (c) proposed strategies to increase use further; and (d) discussed research to support these strategies.     

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.     

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.     

Effect on fatality risk of changing from secondary to primary seat belt enforcement

BACKGROUND: Most seat belt use laws originally passed in the United States contained language restricting enforcement to drivers already stopped for some other reason. States that have since removed this secondary enforcement restriction have reported increased seat belt use. The purpose of the present study was to estimate the effect of these law changes on driver fatality rates. METHOD: Trends in passenger vehicle driver death rates per billion miles traveled were compared for 10 states that changed from secondary to primary seat belt enforcement and 14 states that remained with secondary enforcement. RESULTS: After accounting for possible economic effects and other general time trends, the change from secondary to primary enforcement was found to reduce annual passenger vehicle driver death rates by an estimated 7% (95% confidence limits 3.0-10.9). CONCLUSION: The majority of U.S. states still have secondary enforcement laws. If these remaining secondary laws were amended, an estimated 696 deaths per year could be prevented.     

Connecticut statewide sTEP wave evaluation

INTRODUCTION: Selective Traffic Enforcement Programs (sTEPs) are a proven method to change motorists' behavior. Since 1997, the Connecticut DOT's Division of Highway Safety has organized a statewide seat belt enforcement program, with sTEP waves every three or four months. To date, 28 waves have been implemented. METHOD: Pre-wave and post-wave seat belt observation surveys are conducted by both state and municipal police across the state. Survey results, as well as a summary of all enforcement activity during the wave, are submitted for evaluation. RESULTS: Connecticut seat belt use has continued to rise from one wave to the next in a predictable "saw blade" pattern. CONCLUSIONS: The data clearly demonstrate that agencies that have participated in a greater number of waves have experienced the greatest increase in belt use. Belt use has not yet plateaued and additional sTEP enforcement seems indicated. However, evidence from other states suggests that a plateau may occur somewhere in the mid 80% range. IMPACT ON INDUSTRY: Should this occur, Connecticut will work toward strengthening the round the clock model, emphasizing the importance of aggressive primary enforcement.     

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.     

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.     

Self-Reported Seat Belt Use in Four Countries: A Telephone Survey

A telephone survey was conducted in four countries in November 1998 to compare drivers in the United States with those in Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom regarding their attitudes toward seat belts and belt use laws. More than 90 percent of the 2251 respondents said they thought seat belts are effective, but self-reported belt use was significantly lower in the United States than in the other countries. Respondents in Australia and the United Kingdom had similar views about what they thought were important reasons for using seat belts and had the highest self-reported use. Reasons given for using belts by Canadian and US respondents were quite similar to one another, yet US respondents had significantly lower self-reported use rates, a difference thought to be due to vigorous enforcement of the law in Canada. US drivers were less likely than Australian and UK drivers to say they used belts out of habit, to avoid a ticket, or because it is required by law and more likely to say they used belts for situational reasons. US drivers were least likely to be in favor of belt use laws. Canadian drivers reported the most experience being checked by police for belt use and were most likely to think that nonusers would be caught. US drivers in primary enforcement jurisdictions were more likely than those in secondary jurisdictions to think that drivers not using belts would be caught and more likely to say they always used belts. Results of this survey indicate that seat belt use in the United States could be increased by adoption of primary enforcement laws and highly visible enforcement programs of the type used in Canada, and that seat belt use could be increased in all countries by increasing the penalties for nonuse.     

Evaluation of a high visibility enforcement project focused on passenger vehicles interacting with commercial vehicles

Introduction

In 2004, Washington State applied NHTSA's High Visibility Enforcement model used in the Click It or Ticket seat belt campaign in an attempt to reduce unsafe driving behaviors around commercial motor vehicles (CMVs). The program was called Ticketing Aggressive Cars and Trucks (TACT). This paper details the methods used to evaluate the program's effectiveness and the results of the evaluation.

Method

Four high-crash interstate highway corridors, each approximately 25 miles in length, were selected. Two of these corridors received TACT media messages and increased enforcement over an 18-month period while two comparison corridors did not receive any increased media or enforcement.

Results

A total of 4,737 contacts were made with drivers during the two enforcement waves, and 72% of these contacts led to a citation. Drivers at the intervention sites who said they saw or heard any of the TACT messages increased from 17.7% in the pre period to a high of 67.3% in the post periods. Drivers at the intervention sites also reported increased exposure to the core message of leaving more space when passing trucks (14% pre to 40% post period). The percentage of drivers who said they leave more room when passing trucks than when passing cars rose from 16% in the pre period to 24% in the post period at the intervention sites, while comparison sites showed no change. Over 150 hours of video recorded by law enforcement officers in unmarked vehicles were utilized to examine violation rates and severity of violations before and after the intervention campaigns. Statistical analyses showed that violation rates were reduced significantly at the intervention sites (between 23% and 46%), while remaining constant at the comparison sites. Analyses of the video data also showed that the seriousness of the residual violations at the intervention sites decreased.

Conclusions

Overall, the evaluation results provide a consistent picture of the effectiveness of the TACT pilot project. Success was demonstrated at every step - messages were received and understood, knowledge was changed in the intended direction, self reported driving behavior around large trucks improved, and observed driving behaviors confirmed the self reports.

Impact on Industry

After this initial success in Washington State, the TACT model will continue to be implemented and evaluated by FMCSA in an attempt to validate the program. Based on the results of this study and the consistent positive results found for other sTEP projects, it is likely that TACT will show continued success in a variety of settings and will help reduce the number and severity of crashes involving CMVs. Future research should attempt to use many of the methods described here to further validate the methods for not only evaluations of TACT programs, but also for any other highway safety programs that require measurements of the program's effectiveness.     

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.     

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.     

Increasing seat belt use through PI&E and enforcement: The Thumbs Up campaign

Campaigns to increase seat belt use have been effective in controlled environments, in small geographic areas, in primary enforcement states, and when conducted in conjunction with the enactment of seat belt legislation. The Thumbs Up project was undertaken to determine if belt use could be facilitated in less advantageous conditions. A 3-month campaign to increase seat belt use was conducted in two sites, each consisting of two Florida counties. At its conclusion, the Thumbs Up project did not yield an overall increase in seat belt use across the two sites. However, observed seat belt use and the number of seat belt citations issued increased significantly in one site. The results are discussed in terms of the two components necessary for a successful campaign: public information and education, and enforcement. Further, recommendations for conducting successful community-based seat belt interventions are offered.     

Evaluation of California's safety belt law change from secondary to primary enforcement

Some states allow an officer to stop a vehicle for an observed belt law violation alone (primary). Most require that the initial stop be made for some other violation before a belt law citation can be issued (secondary). On January 1, 1993, California became the first state to implement an uninterrupted change from secondary to primary belt law enforcement. In six study communities, the percentage of drivers observed wearing seat belts increased from 58% prior to the law change to 76% soon thereafter. Drivers surveyed at DMV offices indicated that they had knowledge of the new law and were more likely to wear their belts now than in the past.     

A direct observation study of nighttime safety belt use in Indiana

INTRODUCTION: Nearly all direct observation studies of safety belt use are conducted exclusively during daylight hours. Recent work has suggested that safety belt use at night may differ from daytime belt use. METHODS: An observational study of nighttime safety belt use, utilizing specialized night vision equipment, was conducted in Indiana surrounding the Click It or Ticket 2006 safety belt mobilization activities. A pre- and a post-mobilization statewide direct observation survey was conducted at night coinciding with daytime safety belt use data collection conducted by the state of Indiana. Daytime and nighttime belt use rates were compared. RESULTS: The comparisons across the mobilization period revealed a significant increase during the day, but a significant decrease at night. Comparisons between daytime and nighttime belt use revealed no overall difference during the pre wave, but a significant difference during the post wave. Finally, many common daytime trends in belt use were also found at night, with the exception of the typical age and seating position effects. DISCUSSION: The mobilization activities had a positive effect on daytime belt use, but no effect on nighttime belt use, likely resulting in the differences between daytime and nighttime belt use observed during the post wave. IMPACT ON INDUSTRY: The findings of this study suggest that safety belt mobilizations implemented only during the day do not influence nighttime safety belt use. Changes to how these programs are implemented or additional programs specifically targeting belt use at night should be considered, along with continued monitoring of nighttime belt use.     

Seat belt use in the ambulance patient compartment by emergency medical services professionals is low regardless of patient presence,seating position,or patient acuity

Background: Inconsistent use of seat belts in an ambulance may increase the risk of injury for emergency medical services (EMS) professionals and their patients. Our objectives were to: (1) describe the prevalence of seat belt usage based on patient acuity and seat location, and (2) assess the association between EMS-related characteristics and consistent use of a seat belt. Methods: We administered a cross-sectional electronic questionnaire to a random sample of 20,000 nationally-certified EMS professionals, measuring seat belt use in each seating location of an ambulance during transport of stable, critical, or no patients. We included practicing, non-military, emergency medical technicians or higher who reported working in ambulances. We used multivariable logistic regression models to estimate the odds of consistent (≥50% of the time) use of seat belts for the rear-facing jump seat and right-sided crew bench during transport of stable and critical patients. Results: A total of 1431 respondents were included in the analysis. Patient compartment seat belt use varied with the highest use in forward-facing seats when no patient was being transported (59.8%) and lowest use in the left-side “CPR” seat with a critical patient (9.4%). Only 40.2% of respondents reported an agency policy regarding seat belt use while riding in the patient compartment. In all multivariable logistic regression models, advanced life support level certification and fewer years of experience were associated with decreased odds of consistent seat belt use. An agency seat belt policy was strongly associated with increased odds of seat belt use in the patient compartment. Conclusions: Seat belt use was low and varied by seating location and patient acuity in the patient compartment of an ambulance. Practical Applications: EMS organizations should consider primary prevention approaches of provider education, improved ambulance designs, enactment and enforcement of policies to improve seat belt compliance and provider safety.     

The effect of earned and paid media strategies in high visibility enforcement campaigns

The primary objective of this paper is to describe the impact of national seat belt enforcement mobilizations in terms of changes in public awareness, perceptions, and opinions as they relate to Operation ABC (Always Buckle Up). In order to monitor changes in public awareness and perceptions, a number of national telephone surveys were conducted. Survey results indicated that the following characteristics were associated with lower self-reported seat belt use rates: (a) males; (b) 18-34 age group; (c) persons with lower income; (d) persons with lower education; (e) persons living in rural areas; (f) residents of the Northeast, Midwest, and Great Lakes; (g) residents of states with secondary enforcement laws; and (h) persons less likely to read a newspaper and more likely to listen to the radio. Telephone surveys also suggested that the following groups are more likely to fail to properly secure a child under 12: (a) persons who say they have problems securing a child in seat belt; (b) farm belt residents; (c) Hispanic and Latinos; (d) persons who indicate that they always wear a seat belt but indicate they have not in the past month; (e) persons with older vehicles; (f) lower income respondents; (g) residents of the Deep South; (h) internet non-users; and (i) urban men. These findings provide support for some basic guidelines and suggestions for conducting seat belt enforcement activities.     

Attitudes toward a primary seat belt law among adults in a rural state with a secondary seat belt law

Problem

Enforced primary seatbelt laws can reduce morbidity and mortality associated with motor-vehicle crashes. Constituent support is an important factor associated with legislator voting behavior toward injury prevention laws. Little is known about attitudes toward a primary seat belt law among adults in rural states without a primary seat belt law.

Methods

Data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey, a telephone survey of a representative sample of adults in Montana, were used to assess attitudes toward a primary seat belt law.

Results

Sixty-one percent of respondents supported a primary seat belt law. Using multiple logistic regression analyses, women (AOR 1.87; 95% CI 1.49-2.36), persons aged 65 years and older (1.45; 1.06-1.96), American Indians (2.71; 1.55-4.75), those with health insurance (1.51; 1.07-2.14), and those who reported always wearing their seat belt (4.05; 3.14-5.21) were more likely to support a primary seat belt law than respondents without these characteristics.

Conclusions

The majority of adults in a rural state support a primary seat belt law.