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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Investigation of seat belt use among the drivers of different education levels

Seat belt use habit has been investigated according to the education level of drivers. Copies of a questionnaire were distributed to 1000 participants of four different education levels. Factors such as seat belt usage habit, restricting factors and crash data have been investigated. Data have been analyzed with SPSS 15.0 software. Increased level of education leads to increased seat belt usage, lower numbers of crashes and crash severities. The factors restricting seat belt use are lack of habit, discomfort and short distance driving. The use of precaution signal and increases in comfort can increase seat belt usage. The primary and high school education on traffic safety and seat belt usage has been serving the purpose.     

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.     

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.     

The association between enforcement and seat belt use

A statistical association is found between the number of traffic citations for belt law violations versus observed belt use. Also, belt use is higher in primary enforcement states where officers issue such citations for belt law violations alone. In secondary enforcement states officers issue such citations only after stopping motorists for another reason. Most belt laws provide for secondary enforcement. Enforcement data were confined to the highway patrol in each state (local arrest data are rarely compiled statewide). Belt use data were based on observational surveys conducted in each belt law state.     

The risk of whiplash injury in the rear seat compared to the front seat in rear impacts

One hundred ninety-five rear impacts with both front- and rear-seat occupants in the struck car, where at least one occupant sustained permanent disability, were selected for study. There was a significantly higher disability risk for the female rear-seat occupant compared with the male driver. Furthermore, a higher risk was found for female rear-seat occupants compared with female front-seat passengers. The disability risk for occupants of the driver's seat was three times higher for females than for males, and four times higher for females in the rear seat. In the future, test methods should consider the risk of whiplash injury in both the front and the rear seat.     

The role of enforcement programs in increasing seat belt use

Seat belt laws by themselves led to increased belt use in the United States and Canada, but initial effects were limited. Canadian provincial officials launched highly publicized enforcement campaigns in the early 1980s that resulted in substantially increased belt use. Canadian-style enforcement programs subsequently were adopted in the United States, and the use of such programs has grown in recent years. Lessons from these efforts include the importance of police leadership, focused publicity about enforcement, and sustained rather than single-shot efforts. What is needed in the United States to achieve a national belt use rate of 90% or greater is widespread, methodical, and sustained application of enforcement programs augmented by creative publicity. Enhanced penalties-in particular drivers license points-likely will be needed to reach hard-core nonusers.     

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.     

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%.     

The use of seat belt by motor vehicle occupants in South Africa

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article was to examine the use of seat belt by motor vehicle users in the various provinces in South Africa. METHODS: Data were abstracted from published reports of the national Department of Transport. Percentage distribution and correlation of road safety variables and seat belt wearing rates for motor vehicle users were calculated for the different provinces. RESULTS: High seat belt wearing rates by the drivers (between 75.1% and 88.1%, national rate was 81%). The seat belt wearing rates for the front and back seat passengers were much lower than for the drivers. The seat belt wearing rates for front seat passengers (44.5% to 60.5%, national - 50.1%) and back seat passengers (1% to 16%, national - 7.6%) were much lower than for the drivers. The national seat belt wearing rate for all vehicles between 1982 and 1995 was between 46.9% and 69.2%, but this has generally declined. CONCLUSION: There is a need for the implementation of strategies to increase the use of seat belts to reduce injuries and fatalities.     

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 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.     

Characteristics of drivers not using seat belts in a high belt use state

A study was undertaken in North Carolina to determine the characteristics of the minority of drivers who were not using seat belts following an extensive publicity/enforcement campaign, which had increased statewide use to 80%. Vehicles and drivers whose seat belt use was observed at sites across North Carolina were matched against Division of Motor Vehicles registration and driver history files for vehicle owners. The study file consisted of those observed drivers who matched the owners with respect to sex, race, and approximate age. The results of this investigation indicate that nonuse of seat belts was associated with males; younger age (<35); older vehicles (pre-1985); vehicles other than cars, especially pickups; and poor driving records. Telephone survey information indicated that nonusers were less likely to have health care coverage, more likely to acknowledge having consumed large amounts of alcohol in the past year, and more likely to have an arrest record. When asked about enforcement of the belt use law, many nonusers said that they would not respond to higher fines but they would respond to driver license points. To change the belt use behavior of this hard-core nonuser population, it well may be necessary as was done in Canada to combine publicity/enforcement campaigns with driver license points as a penalty for nonuse.