Safety Administration of the. Transportation of Motor Vehicles. Highway & Transportation Research Council. Virginia. (The

Transcription

1 B. Stoke Charles Scientist Research report prepared by Virginia Highway and Transportation A Council under sponsorship of Research Safety Administration of Transportation of Motor Vehicles Division opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this (The are those of author and not necessarily those of report Highway & Transportation Research Council Virginia Cooperative Organization Sponsored Jointly by Virginia (A of Highways & Transportation and Department University of Virginia) 1985 May 85-R35 VHTRC CHILD SAFETY SEAT AND SAFETY BELT USE AMONG URBAN TRAVELERS Results of 1984 Survey by sponsoring agencies.) Charlottesville, Virginia

2 E. DOUGLAS, Chairman, Director, Planning & Programs Development, W. of Motor Vehicles Division M. BURGESS, Transportation Safety Administrator, Division of Motor V. Vehicles P. HE!TZLER, JR., Program Manager, Department of Information C. Technology M. MCDONALD, Project Director, Transportation Safety Training Center, R. Commonwealth University Virginia D. MCHENRY, Director, Bureau of Emergency Medic l Services, S. of Health Department A. SPENCER, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Attorney J. General W. TIMMONS, Director of Public Affairs, Tidewater AAA of Virginia, E. Virginia Norfolk, SAFETY RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE P. L. ASH, JR., Chief of Police, Staunton, Virginia C. F. CLARK, Services Administrator, Division of Motor Vehicles B. G. JOHNSON, Supervisor, Education, Department of Education C. S. JOHNSON, JR., Commander- 3rd Division, Department of State Police R. F. MCCARTY, safety Program Coordinator, FHWA W. F. MCCORMICK, Assistant District Engineer, VDH&T F. F. SMALL, Highway Engineering Program Supervisor, VDH&T C. B. STOKE, Research Scientist, VH&TRC ii

3 were being used by urban travelers. Observers stationed at restraints signalized intersections displayed to stopped motorists a clip- selected bearing question, Are you wearing seat belts? The observers board approached vehicles to visually verify any response given, n recorded wher safety belts or child safety seats were being used. and also recorded license numbers of vehicles and sex and They passage of Child Safety Seat Law in 1982 resulted in a The increase in infant safety restraint use in 1983 over that in dramatic 1977 baseline period. One of ob. ectives of 1984 survey was determine wher re was a change in use of safety restraints to infants from that observed in June The rates of use found in by 1984 were nearly same as those observed in June In 1984, June of infant RFP's and 66.7% of infant RP's were restrained 78.6% safety devices (child seats, safety belts, or both). The 1983 by 1984 data also show that when re was an infant in car, The infant was in a child safety seat, 3.8% of drivers, 42.3% and RFP's, and 81.1% of RP's were also using restraints; when of was not in a child safety seat, only 11.6% of drivers, 16.% infant RFP's, and 15.8% of RP's were using belts. In both cases of of and nonuse by infants, use rates by or passengers were higher in use all drivers surveyed and lap/shoulder belts were used by 17.7% in of se figures were 2.% and 14.4% in 1983 (Table i). There was no 1984; or statistical difference in safety restraint use by RFP's or practical As in previous surveys in Virginia, 8 greater percentage of RP's. drivers and RFP's used safety restraints than did males (Table female 4). Child Safety Seat Law has been responsible for a significant The in restraint usage by infants, and re appears to have been a increase effect" that has influenced increases in safety restraint "spillover bv or categories of vehicle occupants over that found prior to usage passage of this statute. ABSTRACT nine days in June 1983 and nine in June 1984, four major During areas of Virginia were surveyed to determine wher safety metropolitan approximate age of each occupant. figures were 76.% for RFP's and 66.8% for RP's (Table 6). than in 1983 (Table 3). Finally, study also identified an 1984 between driver's use of safety belts and use by association RFP's (Table 2) and 1984 survey data were compared, re was a higher When of restraint use by drivers in Lap belts were used by 2.8% rate iii

4

5 There was an increase in overall percentage of drivers using I. belts between 1983 and 1984 surveys (16.4% vs. 2.5%). safety Use of lap accounted for 14.4% of driver 2. use in 1983 and 17.7% in belt There was no difference in overall belt usage by RFP's and no 3. in proportions of belt usage by belt system. difference There was no difference in overall belt usage by RP's, but 4. was a decrease in use of child seats and an increase in re There was a positive association between driver and RFP use of 5. belts. If one used safety belts, re was an increased safety tendency for or to also use m. If re was an infant in car using a child safety seat, re 6. an increased percentage of or occupants using safety re- was A greater percentage of female drivers and RFP's used safety belts 7. did males. than In each driver age category, belt use-was higher in 1984 than in In each RFP and RP age category, re was little difference im 9. of safety belt usage in 1983 and percentages A greater percentage of Norrn Virginia drivers and RFP's used ii. belts than did those in or three survey areas. safety Variation in survey data relative to time of day, area of 12. state, sex of occupant, and age of occupant were not influencing factors in safety belt usage rates. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS use of lap belts. straints. I. Belt use tended to be higher in newer vehicles.

6

7 on analysis of d ta collected during June 1983 and Based 1984, it was concluded that p ssage of Child Safety Seat Law by June Virginia Gener l Assembly had a msjor influence on use of safety by infants and a much lesser, but still positive, influence restrsints CONCLUSION on belt usage by or vehicle occupants. vii

8

9 B. Stoke Charles Scientist Research is a great body of literature detailing advantages of There belt use by motor vehicle occupants. This literature cites safety evidence of injury avoidance and economic savings is so strong, and This been so for such a long period of time, that both federal and state has have required installation of safety belts in all new governments offered for sale. It is equally well known that making automobiles safety belts available does not assure ir use. efforts have been initiated by government agencies and Numerous groups to persuade motorists to use restraining devices. There private been many public information and education campaigns using both have and electronic media and star personalities, as well as offers of print awards (in one instance new cars) to increase safety belt usage. various public is also familiar with various engineering approaches, such as The installation of warning buzzers and lights, interlock systems, int belt, and inertial reels, to promoting use of re- three-po, All 5 states now require use-of child safety seats, straints. re are variations in statutes. In addition, legislation although introduced during 1984 and 1985 sessions of Virginia General was that would require use of safety belts by drivers and front Assembly years, re have been a number of investigations to Through percentage of motor vehicle occupants using safety belts. determine early studies, investigators used questionnaire and interview In while in later ones y have used a variety of observational formats, It has been found that motorists responding to questions on techniques. use of safety belts generally give socially acceptable affirma- ir reply. Observations, however, have shown ir actual belt use to tive less than that stated. be past five years, re have been a number of events that Over influence rate of safety belt usage in Virginia. The 1982 could Assembly passed a statute that became effective January i, 1983, General children younger than 4 years of age to be restrained in child requiring CHILD SAFETY SEAT AND SAFETY BELT USE AMONG URBAN TRAVELERS Results of 1984 Survey by INTRODUCTION of reducing in.juries, including fatal injuries, and projects probability value of this reduction to individual and to society in general. seat occupants. As yet, legislature has not passed such a statute.

10 belt use. In addition, re is possibility that efforts to safety safety consciousness over intervening years has produced an promote in use of safety belts. Finally, publicity in relation to increase mandatory safety belt statute in Virginia may have led some citizens a phase of study was initiated to determine extent to This law mandating use of child safety seats changed percentage which infants using se safety devices. A second aspect of study was of determine extent of safety belt usage by all vehicle occupants to June 1983 and 1984, observers surveyed four metropolitan areas In state; namely, Western Virginia (Roanoke-Salem-Vinton), Norrn of Each day of week, Sunday through Saturday, was Beach-Hampton). for at least one full day, and Thursday and Friday were sampled sampled sites located in different sections of survey areas were Three each day. They were chosen because thoroughfares carried used high traffic volumes and provided adequate and safe vantage relatively for observations. Each day both primary and secondary routes. points sampled. Although study sites did not include any interstate were vehicles going to and from such roadways were surveyed. Three highways, periods were used: (I) 8: a.m. to 1:3 a.m., (2) 11:3 a.m. to time p.m., and (3) 3:3 p.m. to 6: p.m. 2: flow dictated use of or lanes in some instances. A Traffic bearing question, Are you wearing seat belts? was dis- clipboard front at a 45 angle. Approaching at right front fender, walked along side and past vehicle while noting and observer recording use of safety restraints. Upon seeing question, most seats. Also, re have been major changes in size, weight, safety design of vehicles, both domestic and imported, that should affect and to alter ir belt use patterns. PURPOSE and wher percentages had changed since survey in SURVEY METHODOLOGY (Alexandria-Arlington-Fairfax-B ivoir), Central Virginia Virginia and Eastern Virginia (Norfolk-Virginia (Richmond-Henrico-Chesterfield), for two days. observations were made at signalized intersections, and usually The of vehicles in lane adjacent to curb were surveyed. occupants by observer to alert travelers to purpose of survey. played clipboard was presented, observer approached car from After

11 would reply. This reply was acknowledged, but only informa- occupants verified by observer was recorded. Persons volunteering tion were acknowledged, but ir comments were recorded only information ir vehicles were within guidelines specified for data when each site observers recorded wher driver and passen- At were using only lap belt, both lap and shoulder belts, or gers form of restraint..in addition, y recorded wher any of no were in approved child seats. An "approved child seat" was infants as any of those models on list distributed by Virginia defined Police as meeting ir specification. Not included were models State hooked over car seat or those that clearly were not adequately that to vehicle. The survey personnel aolso recorded sex and anchored restraint system required by law to be installed, (2) , no systems required to be installed in vehicles prior to sale, restraint installed and coupled to a 4 to 8 second buzzer. To determine system vehicle age category, observers recorded license plate numbers data sheets. These numbers were submitted to personnel of on Services Administration (VSA) at Division 9f Motor Vehicles Vehicle was processed at same time as all or data recorded on mation survey forms. Because of way vehicle license data are kept, of time that elapsed between data collection and submittal of period plate numbers to DMV, buying and selling of cars by license residents, and mobility of population, re was a small state of surveyed vehicles for which model year designations percentage not be determined. This information is noted in appropriate could in report. tables collection. age of each occupant, ir seat position in vehicle, approximate license number of vehicle (see Figure I). and age was divided into five categories: (i) infants (up to 4 old), (2) pre-adults (4 to 16 years), (3) young adults (17 to 3 years (4) middle adults (31 to 6 years), and (5) older adults (over years), years). Vehicle age was divided into four categories: (1) pre-1963, , a restraint system installed and coupled to a continuous (3) an interlock device or both, (4) 1976 to present, a restraint buzzer, who.accessed vehicle file and provided model years. (DMV), year data was n entered onto computer tape and this infor- Model

12 Z :,,-] Z

13 survey was sixth in series and third conducted This summer months, first three having been conducted during during and shoulder straps. The fourth was conducted during June 1977 belts was first to include observations on use of child reand This information straints. child restraint usage was added at on of director of Highway Safety Division. Subsequent to request 1977 survey, it was determined that yearly updates were not neces and that surveys would be conducted following events expected to sary pattern of safety belt usage. The first significant event to change after 1977 survey was passage of Senate Bill 413 during occur 1982 session of' Virginia General Assembly. This statute is to as Child Safety Seat Law and went into effect January I, referred Therefore, during June 1983, nearly 6 months after effective of statute, observers were in field collecting data date on of child restraints. At same time, data were collected on use of safety belts by or vehicle occupants. A year later, dat8 were use collected during summer of 1984 in an effort to determine being re was a change in belt use patterns by vehicle occupants. wher state, sex of 6he occupant, and age of occupant are presented in Tables A-I through A-5 and are discussed immediately below. Appendix number and percentage of vehicles surveyed during each of The daily time periods are contained in Appendix Table A-I. When 1983 three 1984 time period data were compared, re was no difference in and of vehicles surveyed. Each year fewer vehicles were ob- proportions during 8: a.m. to 1:3 a.m. period and more during served p.m. to 6: p.m. period. During 1983, 26.8% of vehicles 3:3 were figures indicate that differences in time period in which These occupants were observed for safety belt usage were not a factor vehicle age data are contained in Appendix Table A-2. A new data Vehicle was added in 1984 because of an inability to identify age category a small percentage (1.1%) of vehicles for which belt of data use available. During both 1983 and 1984, greatest percentage of were The series was originally designed to determine wher re February. fluctuations over time in percentages of persons using seat were ANALYSIS nine-day survey period in June 1983, data were collected During 9,737 occupants of vehicles. The 1984 figures e.compassed on occupants in 5,581 vehicles. Data on number and percentages 8,981 individuals surveyed by time period, age.of automobile, area of of in morning, 34.3% at midday, and 38.9% in afternoon. surveyed 1984, percentages were 27.2%, 34.%, and 38.8%, respectively. For in any differences found in usage patterns.

14 68.5% (1983) and 74.3% (1984), were in age vehicles, This is not surprising in light of years during which category. were collected and number of model years in this vehicle age data Corresponding to greater percentage of vehicles in grouping. category, re were fewer vehicles in and categories. The figures for se two categories were 15.5% to use safety belts, make up an increasingly greater percent- convenient of vehicles surveyed, re should be a greater use by motoring age Table A-3 contains data on number and percentage of Appendix surveyed in each of four areas of state. There was no vehicles in norrn area percentages during 1983 (31.8%) and 1984 difference In 1984, re were slight decreases in central (25.7% vs. (31.6%). and eastern (22.4% vs. 2.4%) area percentakes, and an increase 23.9%) western area (2.1% vs. 24.1%). The observers worked three days, in a Sunday with its lower traffic volumes, in norrn area and one days in each of or three areas. In light of davs worked, two appears that percentage of vehicles surveyed in eastern area it slightly underrepresented in 1984, while percentage of vehicles was western area was slightly underrepresented durin 1983 in These minor differences will not influence overall state survey. data on sex of occupant are presented in Appendix Table The The differences in 1983 and 1984 percentages of male and A-4. drivers and passengers wer.e very minor. There were 2% more males female each of occupant seating categories in Each year, slightly in half of drivers, a third of right front passengers (RFP), over 4% of remaining passengers (RP) were male. Differences in and years percentages are so slight that y should not influence two driver and passenger safety belt use patterns. statewsde and passengers between two surveys. In 1984, 34.8% of drivers were young adults, 55.5% were middle adults, and 9.5% were older drivers The corresponding percentages during 1983 were 27.5%, 69.%, adults. 3.5%. Based on experiences of previous surveys, a greater and of young and older adult drivers in 1984 should hold down percentage driver safety belt use percentage, because se drivers have statewide been ones with lowest usage rates. For RFP's, traditionally significant changes were in middle and older adult categories. most 1984, 39.7% and 12.5% of all RFP occupants were in se age In and in 1983 figures were 48.3% and 7.9%. In addition, categories during 1984 re were greater percentages of pre- (16.2% vs. 14.5%) and 8.7% in 1984 and 19.4% and 11.9% in These data are signifi- and in that as newer models, with ir more comfortable and cant public, all or factors being equal. safety belt usage figures. Table A-5 contains data on age of occupants Appendix There was a difference in age distributions of both surveyed.

15 (29.5% vs. 26.9%) adult RFP's than in The reater young of young and older adults and smaller percentage of percentages adults during 1984 survey should have a negative effect on middle overall use of safety belts by RFP's during latter survey. were also differences in age distributions for RP's. In There re were smaller percentages of infants, young adults, and 1984, adults, and greater percentages of pre- and older adults. This middle should be a negative influence on belt use rates for RP's distribution factor on statewide safety belt use. For 1984 survey, encing of data according to time of day when occupants distributions observed, ir sex, and are8 of state were similar to were surveys. The influence of a greater percentage of newer cars, previous accompanying positive safety belt use effect, coupled with a with percentage of youn and older adult drivers and passengers, with greater accompanying negative effect, will be determined in remainder of report. this data in Table 1 show overall use of safety belts by drivers The passengers. During 1983 survey, 16.4% of all drivers used and belts and in 1984, 2.5% of all drivers used m. The use of safety belts only accounted for 2.% of total use in 1983 and 2.8% in lap of lap/shoulder combination accounted for 14.4% of total use in Use and 17.7% in For RFP's, re was little real difference in 1983 use rates, 16.2% in 1983 and 16.7% in While re were tot l changes in use rates of child seats, lap belts, and lap/shoulder small no change was greater thgn.5%. For practical purposes, safety belts, use by RFP's was same during both 1983 and 19 4 surveys. belt RP's, use of child seats as a proportion of all passengers in For seating positions was 15.7% in 1983 and 11.4% in RP lap se use was 6.8% in 1983 but was 12.1% in 1984, a significant change. belt re was a slight drop in use of lap shoulder belts by RP's, While 1.1% to.6%, se figures have little real impact because so few from are equipped with se belt systems for passengers in se automobiles safety restraint and in 1984 percentage was 24.1%. though re was a 25% increase in belt use by drivers, re Even little or no change in belt use by passengers. It can also be seen was rate of belt use by both drivers and passengers has remained at that low rates since first survey in relatively in previous five surveys, re were few differences in During of vehicles and occupants that would have been an influ- classifications positions. The chan es in use by belt system resulted in little seating in overall RP use; in % of all RP's used some form of change

16 Restraint Number Percent Number Percent Used Only Lap , Lap/Shoulder Seat Child Only Lap I Lap/Shoulder 1, I, None Seat Child Only Lap 13 i.i 7.6 Lap/Shoulder None on association between driver and passenger uses of safety Data are contained in Table 2. During 1983 survey, when drivers belts not using safety belts, of RFP's and 82.8% of RP's were were not using m. When survey data were collected in ]984, also of RFP's and 84.6% of RP's were not using belts when 94.% in cars with unbelted drivers. As.se figuresshow, re was riding difference between 1983 and 1984 data. In addition, re little little change in use of each of three belt systems (child was 1983, when drivers were using only a lap belt, 73.% of In and 48.% of RP's were also using a safety restraint. In RFP's 73.7% of RFP's and 53.8% of RP's were belted when 1984, was using a lap belt. During both years and in both seating driver lap belt accounted for reatest percentage of use. categories, numbers of individuals in each of se categories are very small, The because re are so few vehicles in survey sample in primarily only a lap belt could be used. which system usage by RFP's and RP's was greatest, durin both Restraint and for both seatin categories, when driver was using surveys combination. During 1983, 7.2% of RFP's and 56.6% of lap/shoulder RP's were using safety restraints. Most of RFP usage was Table I Use of Seat Belts Position Seat None 5, , s lap belts, ana lap/shoulder belts) by RFP's. However, a smaller seats, of all RP occupants used child seats in 1984 than in 1983 percentage (9.9% vs. 13.9%) and more used lap belts (5.4% vs. 3. i%). accounted for by use of lap/shoulder belts 64.5%) and most of

17 usage was accounted for in use of child seats (25.8%) and lap RP (24.2%). During 1984, 64.% of RFP's and 56.% of RP's belts using safety restraints. The ma. ority of RFP usage was were of use of lap/shoulder belts (58.7%) and most of RP usage result in use of child seats (18.8%) and lap belts (34.5%). Overall, was belt use as a function of driver belt use declined from 1983 to RFP while that for RP's remained constant. There was, however, a 1984, shift in belt system use by RP's; child seat use (as a significant data on association between driver and passenger use of The restraints show that as drivers progressively increased ir own safety safety through use of lap and lap/shoulder belts, re was driving an increase in use of se same safety devices by passen- also focus of data in Table 3 is on wher drivers and passen- The use restraint systems when infants are in vehicle. The 1983 gers data show that if infant was not in a child seat, only 4.6% survey drlvers, 9.8% of RFP's, and 8.7% of RP's were using a of restraint. In 1984, re was a s gnificant increase in use safety when infant was not restrained by a child safety seat; 11.6% rates drivers, 16.% of RFP's, and 15.8% of RP's were belted in of manner. If infant was protected by a child seat in 1983, 25. i% some drivers, 17.2% of RFP's, and 23. I% of RP's were also of by a safety restraint. During 1984, if infant was im a protected seat, 3.8% of drivers, 42.3% of RFP's, and 81.1% of child were using safety restraints. As se data show,, most. _impor- RP's change in use rates between two surveys was extremely large tant in safety restraint usage rates by RP occupants (23.1% vs. increase when re was an infant in vehicle and infant was in a 81.1%) seat. and passenger use rates were higher in 1984 than in child regardless of wher infants were in a child safety seat or 1983, During both years, greater percentages of drivers and passengers not. using, restraint systems when infant was in a child safety seat. were is an indication of a spillover effect of Child Safety Seat This of all passengers surveyed) declined from 25.8% to 18.8% and percentage belt use increased from 24.2% to 34.5%. lap gers. Law.

18 Not Using Belts When 1'984 19"83 Seat I.i Child Only Lap / Shoulder Lap 1, , None / Shoulder Lap None Of Use I O n.u.s.in.g Lap Belts Whe '1'98" I 26.3 I Using Lap & Shoulder Belts When I Table 2 Association Between and Use of Seat Belts Seat Of Use Position Belts Number "Percent Number Percent Using Child Sea t Lap Only Using Seat Percent Number Percent Number Position Belts Child Seat Lap Only Using Lap/Shoulder None Child Sea t Lap Only Lap/Shoulder None Using Seat OccuDant Of Use Belts Position Number Percent Number Percent Child Seat Lap Only Using Lap/Shoulder None Child Se8 t Lap Only Lap/Shoulder None Using I

19 data in Table 4 depict safety belt use according to sex of The occupant. During 1984, male and female driver, female RFP, and male use was greater than in In 1983, 15.5% of male and 17.5% RP female drivers were using safety belts, while in 1984, 19.5% of of male and 21.9% of female drivers were using m. For RFP's, rates were 15.% in 1983 and 14.2% in 1984 for males, and 16.9% usage 1983 and 17.9% in 1984 for females. These changes are of little in importance. For RP's, usage rates were 24.% in 1983 and practical in 1984 for males, and 23.4% in 1983 and 21.3% in 1984 for 27.8% During 1983 and 1984, female drivers and RFP's were more females. to be using safety devices than were males. Male RP's had higher likely rates during both surveys than did female RP's. use Use of Or s In Vehicles With Belt s Infant Belted Belted Not Belted Belted Not Belted t be ited No Belted Belted Not Belted t Be i ted No Belted t Bel ted No Infants Were in Child Seats When 198'4 198' Infants Were Not in Child Seats When i Table 3 By Use Or s Belt Use Number Percent Number Percent s Use By s Or Belt Use Number Percent Number Percent s ii

20 M le Female M le Female P ssenger ining M le Rem Female P ssengers on s fety belt use by survey time period re contained in D t 5. There w s four percentage point difference In driver use T ble during e ch of three daily time periods between two years rates survey d ta. use w s 16.5% in morning, 14.5% at mldd y, of 18.1% in fternoon during 1983 survey. The 1984 driver use and were 2.7% in morning, 18.5% at mldd y, and 22.1% in rates 1984 use r. te w s nearly 25% greater th n 1983 r te. For RFP's, 1983 use rate w s 2% lower in morning (16.3% vs. 19.6%), nearly 1983 use r tes were nearly same in morning (35.1% vs. slightly higher at midday (2.1% vs. 19.1%), nd 13% lower in 34.9%), afternoon (21.3% vs. 24.%) than 1984 use r tes. Except for v ri t±ons in use r tes for 1983 and 1984 were not of a nature drivers, 6 contains s fety belt use data according to age of Table There were slgn ficant differences in percentages of belt occupant. by two groups of drivers between ges of 17 and 6. In use 14.3% of young adults (17-3 years of age) nd 17.3% of 1983, These figures represent nearly a 57% increase In belt use by dults. adult drivers nd a 45% increase for middle adult drivers. There young no real difference In driver use r tes for older adults (6 + w s 16.3% (1983) vs. 16.6% (1984) during two surveys. years), T ble 4 Belt Use by Sex of Sex Of Position Number "Percent Number. Percent Se t use p tterns by d ily time period re consistent with afternoon. change in over ll driver use of s fety belts. For e ch time period, s me t midday (15.% vs. 15.4%, nd nearly 6% higher in (17.3% vs. 16.3%), th n r.tes observed in For RP's, afternoon to indlc te ny trends in safety belt usage. dults (31-6 years) were observed to be using s fety restraints. middle 1984, use rates were 22.4% for young dults and 25.1% for middle In 12

21 Position Period Number Percent Number Percent Seat A.M Mid. rates of safety belt use by RFP's were categorized by When of occupant, re were two cases where 1984 rates were age two where y were lower, and one that was same as it was higher, In 1984, 78.6% of infants and 14.9% of young adults in using safety belts as compared to 76.% and 11.% in The were in infant rates was a relatively small 3.4%, but differ- difference in young adult rates was in excess of 35%. In 1984, 2.1% of ence RFP's and 12.1% of older adults were using belts; while pre-adult 1983 rates were 21.8% and 15.%, respectively. For pre-adults, use 1984 was down nearly 8%; and use by older adults was 19% lower in in There was no difference in 1983 and 1984 use rates by middle % each year. adults, were only two categories of RP data, those for infants and There where re were a sufficient number of observations of pre-adults, for safety belt use data to have significance. There was passengers difference in infant use rates in 1983 and 1984 (66.8% vs. 66.7%). no re was almost a 33% difference in use rates by pre-adults. However, 1983, 15.7% of. m used a safety restraint, while in 1984 it was In most important safety belt use findin relating to occupant The large increases in use by young adult drivers and RFP's. While was is encouraging to see this trend toward increased use, it is discour- it that only slightly over 22% of drivers and just under 15% of aging RFP's were restrained by safety belts when observed during of summer Table 5 Belt Use by Time Periods P.M A.M Mid P.M A.M I Mid s P.M %. 13

22 of Age Number Percent Number Percent. Oc.9.upsnt I Older Infant 64 2 i I 6 i I Infant t Pre-Adul II 7.3 on safety belt use by veh.icle age are presented in Table. 7. Data previously described, a vehicle age category entitled "undefined" was As drivers of , , and model year cars. The for rates were 6.9%, 14.2%, and 18.8%, while those in 1984 were 12.9%, 1983 and 22.8%. There were too few vehicles in pre-1963 category 14.7%, use data to be meaningful, and re were no 1983 data in unde- for category to use for comparison. These figures represent a 87% fined in 's, 4% in 's, and 21% in difference usage increased with recency of model year 's. While th s trend is in right highway safety direc- classification. it must be recognized that belt use is very low, even in best tion, shown. case 1984 survey data indicate that RFP safetv belt use was higher The that in 1983 for vehicles, lower for than and of little practical difference for vehicles. vehicles, se vehicle age classifications, 1983 use rates were 8.2%, For and 18.3% respectively, while 1984 rates were i.6%, 8.7%, 14.1%, 19.%. These figures represent s 29% difference in 's, and Table 6 Belt Use by Age of Position Seat Older s Older in 1984 as result of "problems that arose in classifying all added license numbers. Safety belt usage rates were higher in 1984 vehicle 14

23 in 's, and 4% in 's. The highest rate of 38% 19.%, was observed during summer of 1984 and was for use, model year cars, vehicle age classification having number of vehicles. greatest 1983 rates of safety belt use by RP's were 15.9% for The 22.9% for 's, and 25.1% for 's 's, 1984 usage rates were 17.4%, 16.7%, and 26.% respectively. The The RP use rates were 9% greater for 's, 27% lower for 1984 and nesrly 4% higher for 's. During both 's, highest RP use rates were for newest classification of surveys, Vehicle Position A e Number Percent Number Percent Seat i 14.3 Pre i Pre i which also contsined more than two-thirds of vehicles vehicles, observed. Table 7 Belt Use By Vehicle Age 15.8 Pre Undefined Undefined 2 ii.8 s Undefined

24 males, and rates of use in 1984 were higher than those in 1983 for did occupant age category. The exception to this trend was by older each male drivers during Belt use rates by young, middle, and adult adult male drivers were 12.4.%, 16.5%, and 17.3% in 1983 and 2.3%, older and 14.9% in Belt use rates by young, middle, and older 19.8%, female drivers were 19.%, 18.3%, and 14.8% in 1983 and 24.7%, adult females in every age category, with exception of older adult and Use rates were nearly 64% higher for young males and 3% higher males. young females in This is an important change in light of for that young drivers, especially males, are most risk prone of fact drivers. The belt use rates were 2% higher for middle adult males, all 12% higher for middle adult females, and 31% higher for older nearly females. While driver safety belt use rates were higher durin adult it should be observed that rates of use generally were under 1984, both 1983 and 1984, female RFP's had a higher rate of safety In use in every occupant age category, with exception of infants belt 16.3% for older adults as compared to 73.7%, 21.4%, 7.7%, 12.7%, and and for males. The 1984 female RFP use rates were 75.%, 21.6%, 17.6%, 9.7% and 13.3% and those for males were 85.7%, 18.7%, i.2%, II.9%, 15.8%, 8.3%. The 1984 safety belt use rates were lower than those in 1983 and female id fants, male and female pre-adults, male middle adults, and for and female older adults. The 1984 usage rates were higher for male male male and female young adults, and female middle adults. There infants, a 32% increase in belt use by young male RFP's, from 7.7% in 1983 to was in 1984, and a 38% increase for young females, from 12.8% to 1.2% This is an encouraging trend, but fact remains that fewer 17.6%. 18% of young, middle, and older adult RFP's than observed using were restraints. safety rates were also computed for various age and sex categories Use passengers in remaining seating positions. A review of Table 8 of just how few young, middle, and older adult RP's were using indicates belts. In fact, so few of se occupants were using belts as to safety per6entages of use relatively meaningless. There was little make in 1983 and 1984 use rates by male (72.5% vs. 7.8%) and by difference 63.8% vs. 63.2%) Infants, but use rates both years were higher female males. Safety belt usage was nearlv 28% higher in 1984 for male for bel use data by sex and age of occupant are presented Safety Table 8. In general, female drivers had a higher rate of use than in and 19.4% in A more significant factor than male/female 2.4%, is that driver belt use in 1984 was higher for both males differences 2% of all drivers observed. in In 1983, female use rates were 77.4% for infants, surveyed for pre-adults, 12.8% for youn adults, 15.4% for middle adults, 22.2% pre-adults (16.5% vs. 21.1%) and nearly 38% higher for female pre-adults 16

25 vs. 2.4%). Again, as for infants, males had higher rates of (14.8% restraint usage during both surveys. safety 9 presents data on safety belt use according to area of Table state surveyed. safety belt use rates were higher in 1984 in of four survey areas. They were 38% higher in western area each vs. 15.6%), 2% higher in norrn area (22.7% vs. 27.3%), (11.3% higher in central area (13.9% vs. 16.6%), and 36% higher in 19% area (15.1% vs. 2.5%). In both years, highest rate of use eastern in norrn area, part of state with greatest aver- was income and highest average educational level, followed, in age order, by eastern, central, and western areas. safety belt use by RFP's was lower in two areas, higher in Observed and no different in one, during There was a 3% drop in one, area (13.5% to 13.1%), no chan e in norrn area (2.9% western year), a 6% drop in central area (14.5% to 13.6%), and an 18% each in eastern area (14.2% to 16.8%). As with drivers, RFP increase use was highest in norrn area and lowest in western area belt RP's, 1984 rates of belt use were 7% lower in western For to 22.1%), 18% lower in central (25.8% to 21.1%), 13% higher (23.8% norrn (21.7% to 24.6%), and 14% higher in eastern (24.% in 27.3%) areas. In general, use of safety belts occurred at a hi her to among RP's in each survey area than that observed for drivers and rate in both 1983 and 1984 surveys. RFP's of state. 17

26 of 1983 Age Number Percent Older Infant Infant I Older Infant Infant O Table 8 Belt Use by Sex and Age of 1984 Position Seat Percent Number MALES Older s Older FEMALES 19.4 Older s Older

27 Western Norrn Central i Eastern Western Norrn Central Eastern i Western i 24.6 Norrn Central Eastern on use of safety belts according to age of vehi- Data occupant age, and seat position of occupant.are contained in cle, previous surveys, numbers of occupants and numbers of belt ffve in each of model year categories w re large enough for compara- users analyses of observational data. For four surveys conducted tive 1974 and 1977, re were seven vehicle age categories. These between year designations were originally developed to be an indicator of model type and style of safety belts installed in vehicles. In ].983, it necessary to combine several of age categories because of was of vehicles in sample. Four data categories were discussed numbers 1983 report. As indicated in discussion of Appendix Table in nearly three-fourths of vehicles surveyed during summer of A-2, were in newest vehicle age category. From a review of contained in Appendix Tables B-I and B-2, it can be seen that only data category contains enough observations to allow meaningful of safety belt use. For this reason, a detailed discussion comparisons data elements will not be attempted in this report. These data of included only for benefit of those readers who have been follow- are safety belt use trends in Virginia since se studies began in ing and, refore, might wish to make ir own analysis. In addi se tables will not be included in future reports because tion, of se model year categories no longer exists. significance Table 9 Belt Use by Area Surveyed Survey Position Area Number Percent Number Percent Seat s Table B-I. Appendix Table B-2 contains data on vehicle model Appendix area of state surveyed, and occupant seat position. In year, 19

28

29 is expressed to Mark Booz and Kevin Cardwell, who Appreciation observational data. Thanks are expressed to Delores collected who keypunched data, and to Mike Burkett, who developed and Green, computer program that produced data used in tables in ran acknowledged are efforts of Jerry Fern, who suggested Also an automated data processing procedure for obtaining model year using a d to Elaine West and staff of Vehicle Services Adminis- data, of Division of Motor Vehicles for compiling model year tration author appreciates efforts of Toni Thompson and,.te n Van- The who typed drafts and final manuscript of this report, to derberry, of Safety Group for ir review, comments, and general members and to Harry Craft for his editorial efforts in readying assistance, ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS report. data for vehicles surveyed. report for publication. 21

30

31 Appendix A Period Number % of Total Number Time Pre Western Norrn Central Eastern Appendix Table A II Appendix Table A , Time Period Data 1984 % of Total Morning Midday 1,739 2,229 1,596 1,991 2, , Afternoon Vehicle Age Data 1983 Number % of Total Vehicle Age Number % of Total 1,257 4,45 67 Undefined l.l Location Data % of Total Location Number % of Total Number 1,414 1,85 1,37 2,67 1,67 1,454 1,399 1,196

32 ining Rema s Female Male Female le Ma Female Male CC.upan. t Appendix Table A Percent Number Percent Number Appendix Table A-5 Age of Data Percent Number Percent Number 6. l 1, , , , Older Infant Infant Sex of Data of Sex Position Seat , , , , , , of Age Position Seat Older s Older

33 Vehicle Age Pre Appendix Table of 1983 Age Number Percent Older Infant I 2. Infant Older 3 5. Infant "I Infant Percent Number B-I Belt Use by Vehicle and Ages Position Seat i 7.1 Older s ].der Older i i s Older

34 Appendix Table B-I Continued Age of Vehicle Sea t Posit_ion OccuPant Age Infant Infant Older Infant Infant Percent Number Percent Number i ii I 25.2" Older Youn Older s i 4. Older Older s Older 2 6.3

35 Appendix Table B-I Continued Infant Infant 1983 Number 1984 Number 2 I I of Age Vehicle Age Sea t Position. Percent O.,ccupant Percent Unde- fined Older 28.6 Older Remainin s Older

36 Vehicle Age Pre Appendix Table B-2 Survey 1983 Position Area Number Percent Seat Western 1 2. Norrn 1 2. Central 1 2. Eastern Western Norrn 1 I. Central Eastern Western Norrn Central Eastern Western 25 1 I. 6 Norrn i 5. Central I 6. Eastern Western Norrn i 1.8 Central Eastern Western Norrn Central Eastern 1984 Number Belt Use by Vehicle Age and Area Surveyed Percent I I. s s

37 Appendix Table B-2 Continued Age Seat Position s tern We Norrn Central Eastern Western Norrn Central Eastern Western Norrn Central Eastern Western Norrn Central Eastern Western Norrn Central Eastern Western Norrn Central Eastern I 15 I 9 17 I ii Percent ii II Number I Vehicle Survey Area Number Percent s s

38 Appendix Table B-2 Continued,A e Seat Position Western Norrn Central Eastern Western Norrn Central Eastern Western Norrn Central Eastern 1984 Number I. I Survey Area Vehicle 1983 Percent Percent Number Unde- fined s