Assessing characteristics related to the use of seatbelts and cell phones by drivers: Application of a bivariate probit model

IntroductionThe effects of cell phone use and safety belt use have been an important focus of research related to driver safety. Cell phone use has been shown to be a significant source of driver distraction contributing to substantial degradations in driver performance, while safety belts have been demonstrated to play a vital role in mitigating injuries to crash-involved occupants.MethodThis study examines the prevalence of cell phone use and safety belt non-use among the driving population through direct observation surveys. A bivariate probit model is developed to simultaneously examine the factors that affect cell phone and safety belt use among motor vehicle drivers.ResultsThe results show that several factors may influence drivers' decision to use cell phones and safety belts, and that these decisions are correlated.Practical applicationsUnderstanding the factors that affect both cell phone use and safety belt non-use is essential to targeting policy and programs that reduce such behavior.     

Effectiveness of primary enforcement safety belt laws and enhanced enforcement of safety belt laws: a summary of the Guide to Community Preventive Services systematic reviews

BACKGROUND: The use of safety belts is the single most effective means of reducing fatal and nonfatal injuries in motor-vehicle crashes. This paper summarizes the systematic reviews of two interventions to increase safety belt use: primary enforcement safety belt laws and enhanced enforcement of safety belt laws. The reviews were previously published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine. METHODS: We conducted the systematic reviews using the methodology developed for the Guide to Community Preventive Services. RESULTS: These reviews provide strong evidence that primary laws are more effective than secondary laws in increasing safety belt use and decreasing fatalities and that enhanced enforcement is effective in increasing safety belt use. Increases in belt use are generally highest in states with low baseline rates of belt use. DISCUSSION: Primary safety belt laws and enhanced enforcement programs tend to result in greater increases in usage rates for target groups with lower baseline rates. Concerns regarding public opposition to these interventions may impede their implementation in some jurisdictions. However, surveys indicate that a substantial majority of the public supports implementation of both primary laws and enhanced enforcement programs. CONCLUSION: Based on the strong evidence for effectiveness of primary safety belt laws and enhanced enforcement programs, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services recommended that all states enact primary safety belt laws and that communities implement enhanced enforcement programs.     

Drivers' opinions of enforcement and incentive strategies to promote safety belt use

During a nationwide campaign to promote safety belt use among military personnel, a field study was conducted at 12 military bases in the Netherlands. Enforcement and incentive programs were varied among military bases. A written survey was administered to personnel of these bases. The survey contained items concerning reported belt use, motivation to use a safety belt, attitudes toward legislation, public information, enforcement and incentive strategies, and awareness of the campaign. The results showed that enforcement was clearly a better accepted countermeasure than rewarding drivers for the use of safety belts. Respondents from bases exposed to the incentive treatment tend to have relatively more positive opinions of incentives than those exposed to the enforcement treatment. Two independent dimensions were present in the response patterns: one representing opinions of enforcement and the other of incentives/rewards.     

Predictive models of safety belt use: a regression analysis of MVOSS data

A substantial portion of the U.S. population fails to regularly use their safety belts. The explanations for the differential belt use have addressed, for example, socioeconomics, state law, attitudes, and perceived likelihood of being ticketed. The current analyses create predictive models of safety belt use. Using NHTSA's Motor Vehicle Occupant Safety Surveys (Years 1998 and 2000; N = 9577), variables related to belt use were entered into backward stepwise logistic regressions to produce two predictive models (Demographic and Attitudinal) of safety belt use (Always versus Not always). The results indicated that belt use is a complicated issue as there were several interactions between variables. The Demographic predictive model contained main effects for, law types, socioeconomics, population density, a gender-law type interaction, and a three-way interaction between age, marital status, and vehicle type. The Attitudinal model included perceived effectiveness of the belt, fatalistic attitudes, and an interaction between perceived effectiveness of the belt and perceived risk of being ticketed. These models survived a multinomial logistic regression when belt use was parsed into three categories (Always, Part-time, and Infrequent). In addition to variables that affect belt use, the results suggested that the structure of "belt use" as a psychological/behavioral construct is more complicated than once thought. Specifically, a dichotomous breakdown of belt use (Always and Not always) oversimplifies the construct because the predictor factors sometimes affect "part-time" belt users differently than "infrequent" belt users (compared to "full-time" users). Many of the factors included in the models have been previously shown to impact belt use, but the interaction effects--indicating a more complicated relationship between these variables than previously suggested--may contribute to a better understanding of safety belt use.     

Safety belt effectiveness in preventing driver fatalities versus a number of vehicular, accident, roadway, and environmental factors

Safety belt effectiveness in preventing fatalities to drivers is examined versus a number factors (vehicle, accident, and environmental) by applying the double-pair comparison method to appropriate subsets of the Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS) data. For each of 13 factors studied, safety belt effectiveness (the percent of fatally injured unbelted drivers who would not have been killed if they had been wearing safety belts) is estimated, as is an associated standard error of the estimate. The results, which are presented graphically, provide no evidence that safety belt effectiveness is systematically influenced by most of the factors investigated, including car mass and model year. The absence of any systematic relationship with car mass is in agreement with an earlier finding based on the pedestrian fatality exposure method; this agreement adds plausibility to the assumptions used for both the earlier and the present methods. Safety belt effectiveness is greater for single-car crashes (62 ± 5) % than for crashes involving two cars (30 ± 8) % , this difference being statistically significant at p<.02. The results suggest weakly that safety belt effectiveness is greater for two-door (48 ± 6) % than for four-door (38 ± 10) % cars, and is greater for striking (44 ± 6) % cars than for struck (27 ± 12)% cars. The above differences probably reflect higher effectiveness in frontal (or rollover) crashes than in side impacts.     

“Buckle Up NOW!” An Enforcement Program to Achieve High Belt Use

In the mid-1980s, the first formal seat-belt enforcement program in the United States was conducted in Elmira, NY. Front seat-belt use increased from 49% to 80%, and the Elmira program became a model for other such programs. In the spring of 1999, the New York State Police launched a statewide seat-belt enforcement campaign, and the Elmira program was revived as part of this effort. This 3-week program was coordinated by the Chemung County Sheriff's Office, and carried out in cooperation with local police departments as well as the state police. The earlier Elmira program emphasized the health and safety benefits of seat belts and warning periods prior to tickets being issued. The 1999 program featured a strong no-excuses, no-warning enforcement message, 32 belt-use checkpoints, and publicity about the enforcement through a variety of mechanisms, including feedback signs that informed motorists of current belt use rates. Front seat-belt use increased from 69% to 90%. Public opinion surveys indicated the program was well known to Elmira residents, and had the support of 79% of those polled. The 1999 Elmira program demonstrates that high-intensity enforcement programs can increase seat-belt use to very high levels with strong community support.     

Ninety five percent: an evaluation of law, policy, and programs to promote seat belt use in Washington state

Seat belt use in Washington state was 83% in 2001. In 2002, a series of law, policy, and program initiatives coalesced to produce a dramatic increase in seat belt use. Washington enacted a primary enforcement seat belt, the Chief of the Washington State Patrol made safety belt enforcement one of the core missions of that agency, and Washington participated in the national Memorial Day Click It or Ticket program during May 2002 and continued the program into 2003. Evaluation of these initiatives was accomplished through observation surveys of seat belt use, analysis of seat belt violation data, and analysis of data on traffic deaths of motor vehicle occupants. The major findings were that there was a two- to three-fold increase in enforcement of the seat belt law, belt use rates increased to 93% in 2002 and again to 95% in 2003, and motor-vehicle occupant fatalities decreased by 13%. IMPACT ON PRACTICE AND POLICY: The primary seat belt law and Click It or Ticket program activities were critical factors in increasing belt use in Washington state. Media and enforcement programs targeting seat belt use can be very effective in raising the belt use rate, but a long-term commitment to continuation of these program activities is essential. Other states implementing new primary seat belt laws should consider delivering a Click It or Ticket campaign prior to the effective date of the primary law and continuing these activities during subsequent months and years.     

Recent estimates of safety belt use

The National Occupant Protection Use Survey (NOPUS) has shown that safety belt use in the United States has increased steadily over the past decade. Increases have been consistent since 2000, when the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in partnership with the Air Bag & Seat Belt Safety Campaign, increased its encouragement of states to implement highly visible enforcement programs. In 2003, significant increases were found in the South; in secondary law states; in all types of vehicles; during both weekdays and weekends; and during both rush-hours and non-rush-hours. In spite of these increases, use remains significantly lower in secondary law states; pickup trucks; the Northeast; and the Midwest. The differences between primary and secondary law states and between pickups and other passenger vehicles have been consistent from year to year. A controlled intersection study, which is part of the NOPUS, has shown that safety belt use has increased for both sexes, for nearly all age groups, and for all races for which data are available. Finally, the NOPUS suggests that children are 3-4 times as likely to be unrestrained when riding with an unbuckled driver as when driving with a buckled driver.     

NCAP test improvements with pretensioners and load limiters

New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) test scores, measured by the United States Department of Transportation's (USDOT) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), were analyzed in order to assess the benefits of equipping safety belt systems with pretensioners and load limiters. Safety belt pretensioners retract the safety belt almost instantly in a crash to remove excess slack. They tie the occupant to the vehicle's deceleration early during the crash, reducing the peak load experienced by the occupant. Load limiters and other energy management systems allow safety belts to yield in a crash, preventing the shoulder belt from directing too much energy on the chest of the occupant. In NCAP tests, vehicles are crashed into a fixed barrier at 35 mph. During the test, instruments measure the accelerations of the head and chest, as well as the force on the legs of anthropomorphic dummies secured in the vehicle by safety belts. NCAP data from model year 1998 through 2001 cars and light trucks were examined. The combination of pretensioners and load limiters is estimated to reduce Head Injury Criterion (HIC) by 232, chest acceleration by an average of 6.6 g's, and chest deflection (displacement) by 10.6 mm, for drivers and right front passengers. The unit used to measure chest acceleration (g) is defined as a unit of force equal to the force exerted by gravity. All of these reductions are statistically significant. When looked at individually, pretensioners are more effective in reducing HIC scores for both drivers and right front passengers, as well as chest acceleration and chest deflection scores for drivers. Load limiters show greater reductions in chest acceleration and chest deflection scores for right front passengers. By contrast, in make-models for which neither load limiters nor pretensioners have been added, there is little change during 1998 to 2001 in HIC, chest acceleration, or chest deflection values in NCAP tests.     

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.     

Drivers' Assessment of Ford's Belt Reminder System

In recent model years, Ford vehicles have been equipped with a supplementary seat belt reminder system that flashes and chimes intermittently for up to 5 min if the driver is unbelted. Sound- and light-based belt reminder systems of various types are beginning to appear in the market place, and it is important to learn about their acceptance and ability to increase belt use. The present study was designed to ascertain consumer reaction and reported belt use regarding the Ford system. Personal interviews were conducted with 405 drivers of vehicles with the reminder system. Among the drivers, 67% said they had activated the belt reminder one or more times, 73% said that the last time this happened they fastened their belts, 46% said their belt use had increased since driving this vehicle, 78% said they liked the reminder system, and 79% said they wanted a reminder system like this in their next vehicle. Five percent had disabled the system. Part-time users were responsive to the reminder, for example, of those who said they currently used belts usually but not on some occasions, 70% said they fastened their seat belts the last time the reminder was activated and 76% said their belt use had increased. Five percent spontaneously mentioned the belt reminder as an especially disliked feature of their new vehicles, and 2% said their belt use had decreased since having it. The 7% of respondents who reported they used belts never or very occasionally were least responsive to the system. Overall, the Ford belt reminder system is being favorably received.     

Drivers' assessment of Ford's belt reminder system

In recent model years, Ford vehicles have been equipped with a supplementary seat belt reminder system that flashes and chimes intermittently for up to 5 min if the driver is unbelted. Sound- and light-based belt reminder systems of various types are beginning to appear in the market place, and it is important to learn about their acceptance and ability to increase belt use. The present study was designed to ascertain consumer reaction and reported belt use regarding the Ford system. Personal interviews were conducted with 405 drivers of vehicles with the reminder system. Among the drivers, 67% said they had activated the belt reminder one or more times, 73% said that the last time this happened they fastened their belts, 46% said their belt use had increased since driving this vehicle, 78% said they liked the reminder system, and 79% said they wanted a reminder system like this in their next vehicle. Five percent had disabled the system. Part-time users were responsive to the reminder, for example, of those who said they currently used belts usually but not on some occasions, 70% said they fastened their seat belts the last time the reminder was activated and 76% said their belt use had increased. Five percent spontaneously mentioned the belt reminder as an especially disliked feature of their new vehicles, and 2% said their belt use had decreased since having it. The 7% of respondents who reported they used belts never or very occasionally were least responsive to the system. Overall, the Ford belt reminder system is being favorably received.     

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.     

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.     

Children's and Adults’ Comfort Experience of Extra Seat Belts When Riding in the Rear Seat of a Passenger Car

Objective: The objective of this study was to explore passengers’ comfort experience of extra seat belts during on-road driving in the rear seat of a passenger car and to investigate how the use of extra belts affects children's and adults’ attitudes to the product.

Methods: Two different seat belt systems were tested, criss-cross (CC) and backpack (BP), consisting of the standard 3-point belt together with an additional 2-point belt. In total, 32 participants (15 children aged 6–10, 6 youths aged 11–15, and 11 adults aged 20–79, who differed considerably in size, shape, and proportions) traveled for one hour with each system, including city traffic and highway driving. Four video cameras monitored the test subject during the drive. Subjective data regarding emotions and perceived discomfort were collected in questionnaires every 20 min. A semistructured interview was held afterwards.

Results: All participant groups accepted the new products and especially the increased feeling of safety (P <.01); 56% preferred CC and 44% preferred BP but the difference was not significant. In total, 81% wanted to have extra seat belts in their family car. CC was appreciated for its symmetry, comfort, and the perceived feeling of safety. Some participants found CC unpleasant because the belts tended to slip close to the neck, described as a strangling feeling. BP was simpler to use and did not cause annoyance to the neck in the way CC did. Instead, it felt asymmetric and to some extent less safe than CC. Body size and shape affected seat belt fit to a great extent, which in turn affected the experience of comfort, both initially and over time. Perceived safety benefit and experienced comfort were the most determinant factors for the attitude toward the extra seat belts. The extra seat belts were perceived as being better than the participants had expected before the test, and they became more used to them over time.

Conclusion: This exploratory study provided valuable knowledge from a user perspective for further development of new seat belt systems in cars. In addition to an increased feeling of safety, seat belt fit and comfort are supplementary influencing factors when it comes to gaining acceptance of new seat belt systems.     

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.     

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%.     

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.     

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.