National Academies Press: OpenBook

Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Safety Belt Usage (2005)

Chapter: Appendix E - Overview of NHTSA Passenger Car Campaign

« Previous: Appendix D - Driver Focus Group Interview Guide
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E - Overview of NHTSA Passenger Car Campaign." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Safety Belt Usage. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13838.
×
Page 47
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E - Overview of NHTSA Passenger Car Campaign." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Safety Belt Usage. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13838.
×
Page 48
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E - Overview of NHTSA Passenger Car Campaign." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Safety Belt Usage. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13838.
×
Page 49
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E - Overview of NHTSA Passenger Car Campaign." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Safety Belt Usage. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13838.
×
Page 50
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E - Overview of NHTSA Passenger Car Campaign." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Safety Belt Usage. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13838.
×
Page 51
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E - Overview of NHTSA Passenger Car Campaign." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Safety Belt Usage. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13838.
×
Page 52

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

E-1 APPENDIX E OVERVIEW OF NHTSA PASSENGER CAR CAMPAIGN This appendix has not been edited by TRB. Background: 1950–1977 Increasing safety belt use (SBU) is an objective that has been pur- sued in many nations and by many organizations within the United States, particularly by safety and health groups and by the automobile industry. The U.S. Congress has also played an important role at var- ious times over the past 30 years. Certainly, the Highway Safety Act of 1966 was a major milestone for all traffic safety programs as it cre- ated the National Highway Safety Bureau, which later became the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and it provided for funding to be managed both by NHTSA and the newly created State Offices of Highway Safety (OHS). In the U.S., safety belts were first installed in vehicles in the late 1950’s but their installation in new vehicles was not required until 1968. Efforts to develop and promote the use of air bags, as an alter- native means to protect occupants of motor vehicles, was also intro- duced in the 1960s and formalized with a proposed requirement for such devices in 1969. Meanwhile, initial public awareness efforts were being imple- mented, both here and in Australia. Perhaps the most widely known of the early media campaigns in the U.S. was the “Buckle Up for Safety” Campaign implemented by the National Safety Council (NSC) in 1968. This was an extensive campaign, the impact of which was not documented in terms of increased SBU. However, NHTSA surveys showed that, as late as 1979, safety belt use (among drivers) in the U.S. was only about 11% (see Goodell-Grivas, 1983, 1987). A geographically smaller effort, initiated in Oakland County, Michigan, resulted in a 3 percentage point increase in SBU (i.e., from 18% to 21%) among drivers and no increase among passengers (Oakland County TIA, 1969). About the same time (1967–69), extensive media efforts were implemented in Australia. These campaigns resulted in usage rates of about 22% (Livingston et al., 1978; Nichols, 1982). Beginning in the early 1970’s, multi-year media efforts were implemented in various European nations. Some of the best recorded campaigns took place in Great Britain, from 1971 to 1978 (Fabry, 1973, Nichols, 1982) and in Sweden from 1971 to 1974 (Edvardson and Degermark, 1976). Support for these efforts appears to have involved a combination of government, safety, and medical organi- zations, as well as the news media (Livingston et al., 1978; Nichols, 1982). The highest documented SBU rate resulting from such cam- paigns was 36%, achieved in Sweden in 1974, following a 3-year campaign involving both public awareness efforts and incentives (Edvardson and Degermark, 1976). At about the same time as the British campaign was being con- ducted, NHTSA was evaluating the effectiveness of media efforts in three California communities. The Agency found no clear evi- dence of increases in SBU resulting from media programs of dif- fering intensity (Fleischer, 1973). Finally, later in the decade, an automobile industry group launched an intense paid media cam- paign in southeast Michigan. This campaign, which included nearly $1 million in paid media in this relatively small geographical area, resulted in a 4–5 percentage point increase in SBU (Motorists Infor- mation Inc., 1978). With regard to increasing SBU, the 1970 enact- ment of the first mandatory SBU law in Victoria, Australia, was likely the most important event of the period. This legislation was followed by similar legislation in all of the Australian states and in New Zealand. The Australian laws resulted in an increase in safety belt usage from just over 20% to about 75% across Australia (Liv- ingston et al., 1978, Nichols, 1982). Similar results were obtained by several European nations which enacted SBU laws. Luxem- bourg, France, Belgium, Finland, Netherlands, Norway, and Spain all enacted such laws by 1977 and experienced increases in SBU in these European nations ranging from 25% to 75%, with a median of about 45% (Nichols, 1982). Several additional nations (Portugal, Greece, Ireland, Switzerland, and Great Britain) followed by enact- ing laws prior to the first SBU law in the United States in 1984. Early efforts were also initiated to encourage mandatory SBU laws in the U.S. NHTSA asked for a concurrent resolution requir- ing State SBU laws in 1972 and the Congress responded with an incentive program in 1973. At the same time, both the automobile industry and NHTSA continued to conduct research to determine the impact of various vehicle-related approaches to increase SBU. They included more comfortable and convenient safety belt sys- tems; reminders such as buzzers and lights (which resulted in usage rates of about 28% in some 1973 model vehicles), and ignition inter- locks (which resulted in usage rates of 60% and above in some 1974 model vehicles). However, there was a negative reaction to inter- locks and, in 1974, Congress repealed a 1973 rule requiring them and, in the same year, withdrew the incentive program implemented to encourage States to enact mandatory SBU laws. At the end of the decade, however, there was a very important event that may have increased the potential for enacting SBU laws in the U.S. In 1977, Tennessee enacted the first child passenger safety (CPS) law. All States followed by enacting such laws by 1985 and, as a result, the use of child safety seats among young children increased from less than 15% to over 50% during that time period. Finally, it is worth mentioning that, throughout much of its his- tory and particularly from 1970 to 1990, the movement to increase safety belt use (SBU) was also significantly affected by a parallel effort to protect motor vehicle occupants by means of passive restraints, primarily air bags. Both the approach and the intensity of SBU promotional programs were affected by the air bag movement, sometimes in a limiting manner and other times in an enhancing manner. No other nation was affected to the same extent by these two competing approaches to protect motor vehicle occupants. In summary, there were many domestic and foreign efforts imple- mented to increase SBU prior to 1978. Legislation in Australia and in several European nations had resulted in substantial increases in SBU but, in the U.S., usage had increased very little. This lack of progress was in spite of a variety of initiatives including vehicle requirements, media campaigns, and a brief incentive program to enact SBU laws. Increasing Safety Belt Usage: 1978–2004 This historical account of efforts to increase safety belt usage in the U.S. begins in 1978, with the completion of an NHTSA-funded

project to develop a compendium of behavioral approaches for increasing SBU. As a result of this and subsequent efforts, a num- ber of approaches for increasing the use of safety belts have been identified. They include: public information (e.g., mass media cam- paigns); education focused on specific target groups (e.g., school- based or employer-based programs); incentives and/or rewards (e.g., an opportunity to win a prize based on a pledge to buckle-up or receipt of a prize for being observed buckled-up); requirements to buckle up (e.g., laws, regulations, or organizational policies requiring SBU); enforcement of SBU requirements (e.g., highly vis- ible enforcement campaigns); and sanctions (e.g., fines and license demerit points). In addition, to these behavioral approaches, several vehicle- related approaches for increasing SBU have been identified. They include reminders (e.g., buzzers and lights), interlocks, and safety belt systems that are more comfortable and convenient. Although some of these approaches, such as more comfortable and con- venient safety belt systems, have undoubtedly facilitated recent increases in SBU, their impact has not been evaluated independent of behavioral efforts. A recent report by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) reviewed these vehicle-related approaches and their current potential for increasing SBU (Transportation Research Board, 2003). In 1978, the Congress also required States to allocate a portion their highway funds for programs to increase SBU. This require- ment, along with the new NHTSA compendium, provided focus for NHTSA efforts over the next several years. Following is a summary of key periods of change in what has been a relatively continuous effort on the part of NHTSA (and others) to increase SBU. Because the effectiveness of safety belts, when worn, is well established, the primary objective of most SBU programs has been to increase observed use, as measured by the results of observa- tional surveys. The characteristics of such surveys have evolved over time. From the late 1970s to 1991, the primary source of obser- vational data was NHTSA’s 19-city survey (e.g., Goodell-Grivas, 1983, 1992). From 1991 through 1994, when nearly all States were conducting statewide observational surveys, national estimates of safety belt usage were obtained by aggregating the results of these statewide surveys. Since 1994, the primary source of observational data has been NHTSA’s National Occupant Protection Usage Sur- vey (NOPUS). The results of period NOPUS surveys have been summarized in a number of reports issued by the National Center for Statistics and Analysis (e.g., see NCSA, 1997 and 2001 and Glassbrenner et al., 2004). 1979–1981: Workshops in the States. The first phase of the revi- talized efforts to increase SBU involved several series of regional and State workshops initiated by NHTSA. These workshops, which involved representatives of State highway safety officials and key advocacy groups, identified legislation as the most effective demon- strated means for increasing SBU. While one series of workshops, which focused on child passenger safety (CPS), was followed by the introduction of a substantial number of CPS bills introduced in the States, the focus on legislation in the SBU workshops was more muted. These workshops focused more on non-mandatory approaches for increasing usage (i.e., public information, education, and incentives) and on community and employer regulations and policies to require SBU. This limited emphasis on legislation in the SBU workshops was in part due to previous actions by the Congress (e.g., canceling the SBU law incentive program in 1974 and strong language that accompanied this action) and, in part due to the fact E-2 that there was not much support for mandatory SBU laws among either the public or State and local officials at the time. At the start of these workshop series, usage among drivers of passenger cars was about 10% and there was no measurable change in usage by 1981 (Goodell-Grivas, 1987). 1981–1984: Outreach and Education. While there was no doc- umented impact of the NHTSA workshops in terms of increased SBU at the time, they provided a background for greatly expanded SBU programs pursued by the Agency from 1981 to 1984. Under a new administration, the Agency implemented an extensive net- working and education program in 1981 that was designed to enlist the support of public health, medical, education, civic, and service, and other groups (including employers) to encourage voluntary SBU among the general public and mandatory use among employees. This approach resulted in the enlistment of scores of such organi- zations promoting SBU in the States and among their own members and employees. There was no stated numerical objective of this pro- gram and there was only a modest change in observed SBU as mea- sured by NHTSA’s 19-city survey (i.e., observed use increased from about 11% in 1981 to about 14% in 1984). However, it is commonly held that this outreach and education program greatly facilitated subsequent legislative efforts. During this period, NHTSA also supported a number of evalua- tions of incentive programs, most often in employer situations, but also in community settings. These efforts resulted in relatively con- sistent evidence of increased SBU in controlled organizational envi- ronments but somewhat less often in more open, community-wide environments (e.g., see Geller, 1982 and Hunter et al., 1986). SBU increases associated with such programs generally declined after the programs were concluded. 1984–87: Intense Legislative Activity in the States. The largest nationwide increase in usage occurred from 1984 to 1987, when 31 States enacted mandatory SBU laws. This legislative movement was initiated by efforts of a medical coalition in New York which resulted in the New York SBU law being enacted in 1984. However, the primary force behind this movement after 1984 was Traffic Safety Now (TSN), an automobile industry-funded organization established to push for State SBU laws. This effort was in response to a Supreme Court decision not to require auto manufacturers to install automatic restraints in new vehicles if two-thirds of the pop- ulation was covered by mandatory SBU laws (with specific mini- mum requirements). TSN was the primary stimulus behind the leg- islative activity in nearly all of the States that enacted SBU laws after 1984. Most of these new SBU laws were secondary enforcement laws, as opposed to primary enforcement laws which allow a police offi- cer to stop and/or ticket a driver for an observed violation of the SBU law. This legislative “compromise” made such laws harder to enforce and diminished their impact to some extent, compared with the impact of SBU laws in Australia and Europe. On average, States that enacted SBU laws during this period experienced gains in their SBU rate of more than 30 percentage points (Campbell et al., 1987, Dinh-Zarr et al., 2001). But these rates frequently declined to some extent within a year after the laws went into effect. NHTSA sup- ported this legislative movement by providing funding for special evaluations of these early laws. The Agency also continued to pro- mote media, education, and incentive programs in the States. Dur- ing this period, the national SBU rate increased from 14% in 1984 to 42% in 1987, a 28 percentage point (200%) increase (e.g., see Goodell-Grivas 1987, 1992).

1987–1990: Diminished Legislative Activity and Recognition of a Need for Highly Visible Enforcement. By 1987, 37 States had enacted SBU laws. Seven additional States enacted such laws from 1987 to 1990. As a result, national usage rate increased more mod- estly, from 42% in 1987 to 49% in 1989. At this time, it was also clear that usage in the States with SBU laws (both primary and secondary) were not as high as the level achieved in foreign nations, particularly in Canadian provinces where highly visible enforcement efforts had resulted in much higher usage rates, some approaching 90 percent (e.g., see Lonero and Pierce, 1981 and Dussault, 1990). In 1987, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) reported on a highly visible enforcement effort in Elmira, New York, which resulted in an increase in SBU from 49% to 77%, a 28 percentage point increase (Williams et al., 1987). A similar study by NHTSA was conducted in Albany and Greece, New York (Rood, 1987). These two demonstra- tions, plus the results of Special Traffic Enforcement Programs (STEPS) in Canada, provided the stimuli for an increasing focus on highly visible enforcement as an effective approach for increasing SBU. During this period, there was also a growing recognition of the need to upgrade existing secondary enforcement laws to allow for primary enforcement. 1990–1992: Operation Buckle Down and the 70% by ’92 Pro- gram. By 1990, there was still much opposition to buckling up. It was recognized that, if increased enforcement was a desired objec- tive, there had to be more effective communication regarding SBU within the enforcement community. As a result an outreach and communications program called Operation Buckle Down (OBD) was developed and implemented in the form of grants with States to hire prominent members of the enforcement community (often retired police chiefs, sheriffs, or leaders in the State Patrol/State Police) to become SBU liaisons within the enforcement community. These officers were initially called OBD spokespersons and later called Law Enforcement Liaisons (LELs). Their objectives were to familiarize police officers with the benefits of safety belt use, to increase SBU within the enforcement community, and to enlist the support of enforcement agencies in State and local SBU campaigns. The first national enforcement campaign was implemented dur- ing the summers of 1991 and 1992. It was called the “70% by ’92” program and it focused on generating highly visible STEP enforce- ment programs, similar to campaigns in Elmira, New York, and in the Canadian Provinces. Its stated objective was to reach 70% national SBU by 1992 (from a baseline of approximately 49%). The program involved highly visible enforcement (and media) efforts surround- ing the three summer holidays (i.e., Memorial Day, Independence Day, and Labor Day) in 1991 and 1992. National OBD conferences were held twice each year to maximize the energy and focus of the program on a combination of enforcement and media activity. This program generated unprecedented SBU enforcement and media activity in the States and it resulted in an increase in SBU, although the magnitude of the increase is not absolutely clear due to a shift in survey approach. Using NHTSA’s 19-city survey, usage increased by 2 percentage points in the first year (from 49% in 1990 to 51% in 1991) but, using a population-weighted average of state surveys, usage increased by about 6 percentage points (from 53% to 59%) during that period. Gains in 1992 were somewhat smaller, increas- ing from 59% to 62%, according to the weighted aggregate of state surveys (the 19-city survey was discontinued in 1991). Overall, the state-survey aggregate indicated that SBU increased by 9 percent- age-points from 1990 to 1992, the second largest increase in U.S. history (Nichols, 1993). E-3 1992–1996: Upgrades to State SBU Laws and STEP Demon- strations. The 70% by ’92 Program was followed by a period of reduced enforcement activity in the States as many State and local officials were still were not totally comfortable with highly visible SBU enforcement campaigns. NHTSA continued to support such activity in the form of STEP demonstration programs in 12–20 States over the next several years, but the level of implementation was not as intense in most of these States as it had been in 1991 and 1992, and generally not as intense as in the 1987 Elmira demonstra- tion. An NHTSA evaluation of these efforts found that an average of 5 waves of STEP enforcement resulted in large increases in pri- mary law states (16–17 percentage points) but much more modest increases (5–6 percentage points) in secondary law states (Solomon et al., 1999). Several States (i.e., California, Louisiana, and Georgia) initiated a rather slow (and continuing) movement among secondary law States to upgrade their laws to allow for primary enforcement. On average, these upgrades resulted in relatively immediate increases in SBU of more than 10 percentage points Ulmer et al., 1994 and 1997; and Preusser and Presser, 1997). During this period, a new method was introduced for measuring SBU. In 1994, NHTSA implemented the first National Occupant Protection Usage Survey (NOPUS), which was a nationwide prob- ability sample to measure changes in SBU. According to NOPUS, the national SBU rate increased from 58% in 1994 to 61% in 1996 (e.g., see NCSA, 1997). 1996–2000: A Crisis Leads Results in a Call to Action and a Reinvigorated Program. In early 1996, following the highly pub- licized child deaths associated with deploying passenger-side air bags, there was a National “Call to Action” conference called by NHTSA, NSC, and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to respond to these deaths. This conference and a subsequent meet- ing of key stakeholders called by the Secretary of Transportation resulted in the formation of a broad coalition of automobile and child seat manufacturers and suppliers, as well as several major insurance companies. This coalition eventually came to be called the Air Bag and Seat Belt Safety Campaign (AB&SBSC). Based on a review of the research literature (Nichols, 1996), the Campaign adopted a 3-point multi-million dollar program to increase both SBU and CPS. The three primary components of this program were (1) a media and education effort to move children to the rear seat; (2) support for primary law upgrades in secondary law States; and (3) implementation of twice-annual media and enforcement mobi- lizations (i.e., national STEPs) called Operation ABC—America Buckles Children. Each subsequent mobilization resulted in the par- ticipation of a larger number of enforcement agencies across the nation, reaching more than 10,000 agencies pledged to participate by November 2000. Also in 1996, the President signed an executive order that directed the Secretary of Transportation to work with the Congress, the States, and other concerned groups, including the automobile and insurance industries and safety and health groups, to develop a new plan to increase SBU nationwide. This effort ultimately resulted in the National Buckle-Up America (BUA) program, administered by NHTSA. It represented an ambitious new effort with the goal of increasing SBU from 68% in 1996 to 85% by 2000, a 17 percent- age point increase. The four elements of the BUA program were (1) public-private relationships; (2) enhanced legislation; (3) high visibility enforcement; and (4) effective public education. One exam- ple of the increased emphasis on public-private relationships

involved cooperation with the AB&SBSC in the implementation of its media and enforcement efforts. Finally, another very important event of this period was the re- authorization of funding for transportation in 1996. In this bill (Sec- tion 157, Title 23, U.S. Code), Congress not only provided substan- tial rewards for States that achieved high SBU rates, it also provided additional funding, in the form of “innovative” grants, for States to improve their SBU rates. NHTSA immediately began to steer these funds into State grants for combined media and enforcement efforts to support the ongoing Operation ABC mobilizations. As this effort progressed, an increasing number of States began implementing more intense and visible enforcement efforts, organized at the State level, but coordinated with the national mobilizations. Associated with these and other activities, including secondary- to-primary law upgrades in Indiana, Alabama, Michigan, and New Jersey, the national SBU rate increased by 10 percentage points dur- ing this period, from 61% in 1996 to 71% in 2000 (NCSA, 2001). Although this increase did not meet the ambitious goal of 85% SBU in 2000, it represented steady progress over the period and this progress was associated with State programs that were increasingly focused on highly visible enforcement and were increasingly coor- dinated with the twice annual Operation ABC mobilizations. 2000–2003: A Refocus on Click-It or Ticket and on Primary Laws. There are several important aspects of the SBU effort since year 2000 that have been associated with increasing SBU across the nation. One of the most important characteristics of this period is the continued evolution of highly visible STEP programs with increas- ing emphasis on paid media and “hard” enforcement messaging in the twice annual national Operation ABC mobilizations. This phase of the mobilizations actually began with the implementation and evaluation of the South Carolina Click It or Ticket (CIOT) program in the fall of 2000. However, it was not until later that multiple states adopted similarly intense and visible enforcement efforts in con- junction with Operation ABC. In 2001, eight southeastern States fully adopted the Click It or Ticket model; in 2002, more than a dozen States in geographically dispersed regions implemented sim- ilar programs; and, in 2003, the majority of States across the nation participated in the national mobilization which was renamed the E-4 Click It or Ticket mobilization. As a result of these efforts, there have been significant increases in both public awareness and SBU in par- ticipating States. Evaluations of these programs generally found statewide SBU increases of 8–10 percentage points associated with these programs (e.g., see NHTSA [2001] regarding the South Car- olina CIOT in 2000; Solomon [2002] regarding the CIOT effort in eight Southeastern States in 2001; Solomon et al., [2002] regarding fully implemented STEPs in 12 States across the nation in 2002; and Compton and Solomon [2004] regarding the nationwide CIOT mobilization in 2003). These increases in SBU have generally been associated with significant increases in awareness of SBU messages, enforcement, and slogans (Milano et al., 2004). Associated with the above efforts, the national SBU rate rose from 71% in 2000 to 79% in 2003. The greatest increase (4 percentage points) took place in 2003 when most States participated in the national CIOT mobilization (Glassbrenner et al., 2004). 2004: The Current Program. Recently, NHTSA reviewed all potential efforts for increasing SBU and created a new strategic plan which focuses on continued efforts to conduct high visibility enforce- ment of safety belt use laws, development of a multi-year national communications effort that supports enforcement and other effective means for increasing SBU, expanding its employer policies and reg- ulations to increase employee SBU; and improving the comfort and convenience of safety belt systems. Although tracking safety belt usage rates continues via the NOPUS, there is also a new metric for tracking progress. It is called the conversion rate and it refers to the percent of SB non-users con- verted to SB users each year or by each campaign effort. Assuming an 8.5% conversion rate of non-users to users, NHTSA projects an 81% SBU rate by 2005 and an 88% rate by 2010. Perhaps the most important unfinished business with regard to implementing a maximally effective program to increase SBU is the enactment of primary enforcement laws in all states. Without such laws, a national usage rate above 80 percent will be very hard to achieve. Currently, 21 States plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have such laws. That means upgraded legislation is needed in 28 States with secondary laws and in New Hampshire, which has no adult safety belt law. Period Activity SBU Change Measurement 1978–1981 SBU Workshops with the States none n/a 1981–1984 Outreach and Education 11% to 14% 19-city Survey 1984–1987 Rapid Expansion of SBU Laws 14% to 42% 19-city survey (Vince and Larry Campaign) 1987–1990 Declining Expansion of SBU Laws 42% to 49% 19-city survey (Vince and Larry Campaign) 1990–1992 Highly Visible Enforcement 53% to 62% State Survey (Vince and Larry Campaign) Aggregate 1992–1996 Modest increase in Primary Laws relatively flat State Surveys Modest STEP activity NOPUS (Vince and Larry Campaign) Many changes in measurement 1996–2000 Modest increase in Primary Laws 61% to 71% NOPUS National Enforcement Mobilizations 2000–2003 Greatly enhanced Enforcement 71% to 79% NOPUS and Paid Media Efforts; Modest Increases in Primary Laws TABLE E-1 Program efforts and phases associated with overall increase in SBU

In Summary, progress has been made relative to increasing SBU from 11% in 1978 to 79% in 2003. Most of this increase has been associated with the enactment of SBU laws and with highly visible enforcement and media programs in support of these laws. Other programs, such as public information, education, and incentives appear to work best in an environment of enforced SBU laws. Table E-1 is an abbreviated list of the program efforts and phases that have been associated with the overall increase in SBU. Post Script: The “Vince and Larry” (V&L) media campaign has been included in several of the above phases because, throughout much of the 1980s and 1990s, this public service campaign, man- aged by the Ad Council, was a central part NHTSA’s occupant pro- tection program. As such, it has been suggested at times that this popular campaign may have been a key factor in the increase in SBU from 1981 through 1995. However, a review of changes in SBU suggests that increases at the State level corresponded with changes in legislation and/or enforcement efforts and not necessar- ily with the presence of the V&L program (which was relatively continuous over time). This program is likely one of the very best examples of a popular and visible public service effort and, as such, it is possible that it contributed to the visibility and acceptability of the overall program. However, it is unclear whether this public ser- vice program, in the absence of more powerful activities, resulted in significant increases in SBU. REFERENCES American Seat Belt Council. Safety Belt Use Abroad. Washington, D.C., 1996. Campbell, B. J., Stewart, J. R., and Campbell, F. A. 1985–1986 Experience with Belt Laws in the United States. University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, Chapel Hill, 1987. Compton, R., and Solomon, M. “Exporting ‘Click it or Ticket’ to Other States.” Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 35, 2004. Dinh-Zarr, T. B., Sleet, D. A., Shults, R. A., Zaza S., Elder, R. W., Nichols. J. L., Thompson, R. S., and Sosin, D. M. “Reviews of Evidence Regarding Interventions to Increase Use of Safety Belts.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 21 (4S), 2001, pp. 48–65. Dussault, C. “Effectiveness of a Selective Traffic Enforcement Pro- gram Combined with Incentives for Seat Belt Use in Quebec.” Health Education Research, Vol. 5, 1990, pp. 217–223. Fabry, R. “Campaign Case History: Seat Belts 1971.” Department of Environment, London, United Kingdom, 1973. Edvardsson, K., and Degermark, M. The Use of Seat Belts in Motor Vehicles in Sweden, 1971–75: Effects of Campaign and Legisla- tion. Report Number 35, Swedish Road Safety Office, Analysis Office, Stockholm, Sweden, 1976. Fleischer, G. A. “A Study of the Effectiveness of a Radio/TV Cam- paign on Safety Belt Use.” Journal of Safety Research, 5(1), 1973. Geller, E. S. (1982). Corporate Incentives for Promoting Safety Belt Use: Rationale, Guidelines, and Examples. U.S. DOT HS Tech- nical Report No. 806-389, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C., 1982. Glassbrenner, D., Cara, J., and Nichols, J. L. “Recent Estimates of Safety Belt Use.” Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 35, 2004. Glassbrenner, D., and Utter, D. Observed Shoulder Belt Use from the June 2001 Mini NOPUS. U.S. DOT HS Research Note No. 809- E-5 319, National Center for Statistics and Analysis, Washington, D.C., August 2001. Goodell-Grivas, Inc. Restraint System Use in the Traffic Population. U.S. DOT HS Technical Report No. 806-424, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (earliest rates) Washington, D.C., May 1983. Goodell-Grivas, Inc. Restraint System Use in the Traffic Popula- tion. U.S. DOT HS Technical Report No. 807-080, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C., March 1987. Haseltine, P. W. Seat Belt Use in Motor Vehicles: The U.S. Expe- rience. Summit Report. Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety, Inc., Arlington, VA, 2001. Hunter, W. W., Campbell, B. J., and Stewart, J. R. “Seat Belts Pay off: An Evaluation of a Community-wide Incentive Program.” Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 17, 1986, pp. 23–31. Livingston, C., Fee, D., Knaff, R., Ziegler, P., Nichols, J., Trilling, D., Voas, R., and Womack, J. Task Force Report on Safety Belt Usage Laws. U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C., 1978. Lonero, L. P., Gardner, N., Pang, H., Pierce, J., Toomer, M., and Young, P. Evaluating the Effects of Seat Belt Information and Leg- islation in Ontario. Proc., 1976 International Symposium on Occu- pant Restraints. American Association for Automotive Medicine, 1976. Lonero, L. P., and Pierce, J. A. History and Evaluation of Seat Belt Legislation in Ontario. Proc., International Symposium on Occu- pant Restraints. American Association for Automotive Medi- cine, 1981. Milano, M., McInturff, B., and Nichols, J. L. “The Effect of Earned and Paid Media Strategies in High Visibility Enforcement Cam- paigns.” Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 35, 2004, pp. 203–214. Motorists Information, Inc. Michigan Safety Belt Project. Detroit, MI, 1978. National Center for Statistics and Analysis. National Occupant Pro- tection Use Survey-1996 Controlled Intersection Study. Research Note. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., August 1997. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Evaluation of South Carolina’s Click-It or Ticket Program, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transporta- tion, Washington, D.C., 2001. Nichols, J. L. Increasing Safety Belt and Child Seat Usage to Prevent Deaths and Injuries to Unrestrained and Improperly Restrained Vehicle Occupants. Background paper for Safety Belts, Air Bags, and Passenger Safety: A Call to Action Conference, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Washington, D.C., January 16–17, 1996. Nichols, J. L. (1993). Results of the 1991–92 Campaign to Increase Safety Belt Usage. Paper presented at the Second World Confer- ence on Injury Control. Atlanta, GA, May 20–23, 1993. Nichols, J. L. Effectiveness and Efficiency of Safety Belt and Child Restraint Programs. National Highway Traffic Safety Adminis- tration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., May 1983. Oakland County Traffic Improvement Association. A Report on the Activities and Measured Effectiveness of a Public Education Pro- gram for Safety Belt Use. Oakland County, Michigan, 1969.

Peat, Marwick, Mitchell, and Company. Effectiveness of Safety Belt Usage Laws. U.S. DOT HS Technical Report No. 805-490, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C., 1980. Preusser, D. F., and Preusser, C. W. Evaluation of Louisiana’s Safety Belt Law Change to Primary Enforcement. U.S. DOT HS Technical Report No. 808-620, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C., 1997. Rood, D. H., Kraichy P. P., and Carman, J. A. Selective Traffic Enforcement Program for Occupant Restraints—Final Report. U.S. DOT HS Technical Report No. 805-490, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C., 1987. Simpson, H. M., and Warren, R. A. Seat Belts and Traffic Safety: the Canadian Experience. Proc., International Symposium on Occu- pant Restraints. American Association for Automotive Medicine, 1981. Solomon, M. G. Region IV Click-It or Ticket Campaign. U.S. DOT HS Technical Report No. 809-404, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C., 2002. Solomon, M. G., Ulmer, R. G., and Preusser, D. F. Evaluation of Click-It or Ticket Model Programs. U.S. DOT HS Technical Report No. 809-498, National Highway Traffic Safety Adminis- tration, Washington, D.C., 2002. Solomon, M. G., and Nissen, W. J. Evaluation of Maryland, Okla- homa, and the District of Columbia’s Seat Belt Change to Pri- mary Enforcement. U.S. DOT HS Technical Report No. 809-213, E-6 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C., 2001. Solomon, M. G., Nissen, W. J., and Preusser, D. F. Occupant Pro- tection Special Traffic Enforcement Program Evaluation. U.S. DOT HS Technical Report No. 808-884, National Highway Traf- fic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C., 1999. Special Report 278, Buckling Up: Technologies to Increase Seat Belt Use. TRB, National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003. Ulmer, R. G., Preusser, C. W., and Preusser, D. F. (1997). Evalua- tion of Georgia’s Seat Belt Law Change to Primary Enforcement. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Depart- ment of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 1997. Ulmer, R. G., Preusser, C. W., Preusser, D. F., and Cosgrove, L. A. Evaluation of California’s Safety Belt Law Change from Sec- ondary to Primary Enforcement. U.S. DOT HS Technical Report No. 808-205, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C., 1994 Williams, A. F., Lund, A. K., Preusser, D. F., and Blomberg, R. D. “Results of a Seat Belt Use Law Enforcement and Publicity Pro- gram in Elmira, New York.” Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 19, 1987, pp. 243–249. Williams, A. F., Reinfurt, D., and Wells, J. K. “Increasing Seat Belt Use in North Carolina.” Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 27, 1996, pp. 33–41. Ziegler, P. N. “The Effect of Safety Belt Usage Laws around the World.” Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, 1977.

Next: Abbreviations used without definitions in TRB publications »
Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Safety Belt Usage Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program (CTBSSP) Synthesis 8: Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Safety Belt Usage identifies and documents motivating factors that influence commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers in deciding whether to wear safety belts and research and practices that address CMV safety belt usage. It also offers a review of ergonomic and human engineering factors in the design and use of safety belts in CMVs as well as approaches to facilitate safety belt use by truck manufacturers.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!