OPEN MEETING NOTICE Rose Simone, Missouri Co-Chair *Norraine Wingfield, Kansas Co-Chair Leadership Team November 18, 2015 9:00 AM 10:30 AM MARC Board Room 2 nd Floor AGENDA 1. Introductions 2. Approval: Draft September Meeting Summary* 3. Updates: Unrestrained Occupants a. Kansas seat belt usage rates (Wingfield) b. Missouri seat belt usage rates (Ralovo) c. Fatalities and serious injuries data (Bartlett) d. Q/A Discussion 4. Discussion: Coalition goal and objective setting for 2016 a. Meeting Schedule and Draft Topics (Bartlett) 5. Updates/Discussion: Safety Partners Round Table a. National Study on roadway safety culture b. Fatality Report ending September 30 th c. It only takes one d. Open floor Next Meeting: January 27, 2016 * Action Item Getting to MARC: For information on transportation options to the MARC offices, including directions, parking, transit, carpooling, and bicycling, visit http://marc.org/mapandparking.htm. If driving, visitors and guests should enter the Rivergate Center parking lot from Broadway and park on the upper level of the garage. An entrance directly into the conference area is available from this level. Special Accommodations: Please notify the Mid-America Regional Council at (816) 474-4240 at least 48 hours in advance if you require special accommodations to attend this meeting (i.e., qualified interpreter, large print, reader, hearing assistance). We will make every effort to meet reasonable requests. MARC programs do not discriminate against anyone on the basis of race, color or national origin, according to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. For more information or to obtain a Title VI Complaint Form, see http://www.marc.org/transportation/title_vi.htm, or call 816 474 4240.
Item 2 DRAFT Summary Leadership Team Meeting September 30, 2015 9:00 AM 10:30 AM MARC Board Room 2 nd Floor Present: Rose Simone, Think First of Greater KC Don Paul Jones III, UG of WyCo/KCK Danielle Marten, KDOT Traffic Safety Bob Hamilton, KDOT Law Enforcement Liaison Michelle Compton, MoDOT Public Relations Erin Ralovo, MoDOT Traffic Safety David Church, Parsons Brinkerhoff Jackie Gatotho, Parsons Brinkerhoff Vicky Ward, Tri County Mental Health Cathleen Welton, Clay Co. Public Health Cent. Teresa Tunstill, Clay Co. Public Health Center Ron Achelpohl, MARC Trans. & Environment Martin Rivarola, MARC Nancy Heidrich, Pioneer Trails RPC Susan Cohen, Americans for Older adult Safety MARC Staff: Aaron Bartlett, Stephen Lachky, Jim Hubbell 1. Introductions Rose Simone had committee members and guests introduce themselves and the organizations they represent. 2. *Summary Notes from July Meeting Rose Simone requested the leadership team review the July meeting summary. Corrections were made. Norraine Wingfield chaired the meeting that Rose Simone was no present. No further revisions were required. A motion and seconded to approve the summary. The motion carried. 3. Draft MARC State Legislative Agendas discuss safety issues Report: Aaron Bartlett provide a review of the draft. The agenda is created annually to identify issues important to local governments. At the last meeting a first draft was shared. In July this draft was shared with the MARC Board. The Leadership Team was asked to review the final draft. The final draft will be considered by the MARC Board in October. The Leadership Team has been concerned about states who have moved to legalize marijuana. This has increased the prevalence of impaired driving. We are watching states like Colorado and Oregon that are seeing fatalities involving drivers under the influence of marijuana grow. Testing has shown that presence of marijuana has gone up with traffic stops. Testing requires blood draws and takes time to process. Additionally it is difficult to regulate with set limits for impairment. Adding to the complexity of set limits are the effects of impairment cause when combined with other drugs like alcohol. A petition is in circulation in Missouri to get a measure on the ballot in 2016 and exploratory sessions have been held in Kansas. With the information available, the issue has not been added to the agenda but should be closely monitored. Additional topics included:
A Missouri ban on texting for all ages not just those under 18 years of age Passing a Missouri Primary Seatbelt law for all seated positions Restricting cell phone use for new drivers under the GDL Retention of the Missouri Motorcycle Helmet Law Enactment of a Highway Safety Corridor along K 10 Highway Reduction in the maximum 75 mph speed limit in Kansas on I 70 in areas with elevated fatalities. Discussion: Vicky Ward, shared that the most recent report from the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Traffic Area, The Legalization of Marijuana in Colorado The Impact (Vol. 3 Sept. 2015) was just released. Rock Mountain High Report came out a day earlier and has linked a rise in driver impairment with roadway fatalities. In Missouri, any amount of illegal drugs constitutes impairment and is enough or a DUID conviction. This is part of the Abuse and Loose Law. A simple marijuana test is needed. However, this is not happening, the law is not being enforced. Working within juvenile services it is no secret among High School age students. So youth see this as a safer drug to use than alcohol because there are no consequences, so the problem has gotten worse. The team discussed how the sobriety check points and other traffic related stops might be used. Additional questions raised about who and how the information is reported, how law enforcement are trained to conduct field sobriety testing and the role of a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE). The team determined to address these questions and topics at future meeting. In the State of Kansas, the primary law amendments are in bill form. The fine is proposed at $30 instead of $60. For those working to pass a primary law it should be for all seating positions not just the front seats. Thirty four 34 states and the 3 territories have primary seatbelt laws. There is concern about raising the speed limit again above the current 75 mph. KHP is opposed because the severity of crashes increase as do the total number of crashes. In these cases the crashes are more deadly. Actual travel is reduced but the gains are insignificant. 4. Evaluation of Transportation Outlook 2040 (Safety) Performance Measures Jim Hubbell reported on the MTP Transportation Outlook 2040 performance measures (PMs). MARC staff has evaluated reviewed and updated PMs. PMs were incorporated in 2010 with the preceding MTP. Performance based planning helps to improve transparency while informing decision makers. PMs quantify goals. MARC has used 29 PMs annually since 2010. This review was required to address new MAP 21 PMs. It was done to improve our process as a data driven self assement. The PMs must be reliable, relevant and responsive. The PMs are used to set targets. We choose PMs that can be influenced or for which we have some control over. We also want PMs that are cross cutting that relate to more than just one goal. PMs should be unique, quantitative, simple (not complex) and few in number to keep them manageable. The PMs should be scalable from regional to county or city. PMs need to be available (not too expensive to obtain) and dependable.
MARC looked for measures to that can be calculated in house so that we are not relying on other agencies or third parties to report. Research was conducted of other MPO practices. A handout was provided of proposed PMs based on available research and desired PM qualities. Some change are proposed to the current PMs. PMs with an asterisk have been carried forward from the 2010 list. Those shaded blue (with an X) are required by MAP 21. Final rules for Safety PMs are not yet out. Mr. Hubbell reviewed each of the PMs from MAP 21 MTP Performance Measures (draft) MTP Carry Over MAP 21 1. Number of Fatalities * X 2. Fatality Rate * X 3. Number of Serious Injuries * X 4. Serious Injuries Rate * X 5. % of Interstate pavements in good X condition 6. % of Interstate pavements in poor * X condition 7. % of Non Interstate NHS pavements in X good condition 8. % of Non Interstate NHS pavements in * X poor condition 9. % NHS bridges in good condition X 10. % NHS bridges in poor condition * X 11. PM peak delay (per vehicle, person) X 12. PM peak reliability (PTI) X 13. Mileage of roads congested 3+ hours X per day 14. 3 yr average ozone levels * X 15. PM (2.5) emissions per capita or VMT X 16. CO 2 emissions per capita or VMT X 17. Bicyclist / Pedestrian Fatalities X 18. Bicyclist / Pedestrian Serious Injuries X 19. Cost of Truck Delay on NHS Routes 20. % Work trips not driving alone (alternative modes) 21. Transit boarding per revenue service hour 22. Access to Job by Transit 23. On time Transit Performance 24. % Regional Bikeways Network Miles Serving an Activity Center 25. Tree Canopy Coverage in Activity * *
Centers 26. Activity Center Vibrancy / Livability Discussion: What definition is used for serious injuries? Current reporting considers an injury requiring emergency transport as a serious injury. Note: However, under the proposed MAP 21 safety rule the FHWA proposes that States would use KABCO scale, through NHTSA conversion tables for reporting. This would be consistent with MMUCC Model Manual Uniform Crash Criteria as it uses the KABCO scale. [NOTE ADDED FOR CLARITY]. What is an activity center and how is it defined? The region has over 900 activity centers and they are in the region. They vary in size, demographics, mixed use, transit service, walkability and housing. Centers and corridors model connects the region together. How do you get the peak period data for congestion? Delay and congestion data comes from the FHWA National Performance Management Research Data Set (NPMRDS) which uses grouped mobile phone carrier data. Why do you use the NPMRDS instead of the Kansas City Scout data? The NPMRDS data is consistent and available across the region. They are different datasets. KC scout data is more robust and reliable but does not have the coverage we need. 5. Update on 2016 Safety Projects Michele Compton reported on a new state initiative underway called IT ONLY TAKES ONE. This program addresses distraction, impairment and seatbelt use in high schools. Students will be taught that one call, one drink, one text, one click of the seat belt is all it takes between life and death in a crash. The program maintains programs like Battle of the Belts while extending the time of the program over more the school year. Pre campaign seat belt surveys will be conducted in October. A second seatbelt survey will follow in February or March to measure the change in behavior. The program launches in High Schools on November 11 th. Each MoDOT district will distribute 1,400 back packs to those schools that enroll. Schools will use the backpacks to incentivize the program for students. Teen drivers are asked to complete a contract that they will keep at home and one that they will bring to school. Students will be entered into drawing for the backpacks each week if they have signed the contract and returned it. Schools will share information about Graduated Driver s License requirements and responsibilities. The schools will compete on seatbelt numbers. Three PSA winners will be selected in each district. Gold Silver and Bronze Banners will be given to the winning schools. MoDOT is sending informational post cards in October to over 700 schools that participated in Battle of the Belts. Schools will register online. The program has a website on the savemolives.com site under campaigns. The website includes all of the details regarding how the program is run and how schools will compete for awards. Timeline, campaign materials, seatbelt survey instructions,
campaign ideas, school handbook policy, press releases, PSA entry, Awards and regonional contacts are available here. Discussion: Are there any programs like this with similar names? There is a suicide prevention program in Illinois by this name. ACT Missouri is a supporter of the savemolives program. The campaign name is similar in concept to the ThinkFirst campaign One Chance, One Choice, One Life safety message. How will this program work with SAFE in southwest MO? SAFE was privately funded through Children s Mercy Hospital and is being launched in a few schools. Nancy Hedrick request indicated she would like to help with the outreach to schools in the RPC area. 6. Annual Review of MARC Conflict of Interest and Whistleblower Polices Aaron Bartlett indicated that the MARC polices are shared all planning and programming committees, as well as Destination Safe. Links to policies were provided. The policies are intended to protect the integrity of the work that MARC performs and the process that other follow what work with MARC. Anyone that could gain momentarily from a decision made by a MARC programming committee should divulge this information in a transparent manner. No revisions have been made to the policies. 7. Safety Partners Round Table KC Scout is running a ramp metering project along I 35 and is looking for public comment. Information about the project is on the KC Scout website. Cathleen Welton shared a new report is coming out the 2015 Northland Health Care Alliance Community Health Assement. Several of the partners that are part of the alliance Clay Co. Health Center, Platte County Health Department, Tri County Mental Health are member of Destination Safe and this group. The report looks at access to healthcare, prevention of chronic diseases, and mental health substance abuse. This last one is the tie to Destination Safe and roadway safety. Now we will begin developing community action plan to work across organizations and cities to address these three areas. Vick Ward reported that through the Arrive Alive program Tri County Mental Health has an ideas fair for students to submit strategic plans to address safety in their schools. We will try to fund all of the plans if possible. Jim Hubbell thanked everyone that attended the special meeting with U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Chairman Christopher Hart. He was very interested in the work of the coalition related to distract driving. Several members of the Leadership Team attended to contribute to the discussion. Danielle Marten reported that KDOT would be working with 4 counties to pilot safety plans for local roads. The plans will be used to address HSIP recommendations that will reduce fatalities
using systemic low cost improvements. Twenty five percent of all Kansas fatalities occur on local roads. All counties in Kanas will eventually have an assement conducted. The hope is that these plans will help to engage the local county engineers and that this will overflow into the Regional Safety Coalitions. Paul Jones, shared that Kansas City, Kansas would have several elementary schools participating in Walk to School Day on October 7th. He urged others to register and participate on the walktoschoolkc.com website a partnership between MARC and BikeWalkKC. Bob Hamilton, reported that six law enforcement agencies participated in writing 1,174 citations for speeding along K 10 Highway. The effort is to reduce the prevalence of speeding along this corridor and to reduce the number and severity of crashes. The next meeting will be held on November 18. The Leadership Team will address work in 2016. The meeting ended just after 10:30 AM.
KANSAS SAFETY BELT DIRECT OBSERVATION SURVEY Supplementary Analyses Summer Study 2014 September 18, 2014 SUBMITTED TO: KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION SAFETY AND TECHNOLOGY Submitted by: Daniel H. Schulte DCCCA, Inc. 1739 East 23 rd Street Lawrence, KS 66046 (785) 830-8238
Table of Contents: SUMMARY OF RESULTS... 1 Changes in the Survey Method:... 1 Summary Statements:... 2 2014 Survey Results:... 2 Specifics:... 3 Demographics... 3 Belt Use Rates:... 3 INTRODUCTION TO SUPPLEMENTARY RESULTS... 6 RESULTS... 7 How does the Kansas belt use rate compare to the national average?... 7 Technical Note: Weighted and Unweighted Belt Use Rates and Other Results... 8 What vehicle types are represented in the 2014 survey?... 9 Proportions of Vehicle Types 2002-2014... 10 Who is driving the observed vehicles?... 11 Are the drivers younger, middle age, or older?... 12 Do different positions in the vehicle result in different belt use rates?... 13 Do occupants of different kinds of vehicles use their belts at different rates?... 14 Has the lower belt use rate in trucks been consistent over time?... 15 What are the differences in belt use between male and female truck drivers?... 17 Do Law Enforcement Personnel Use Their Belts?... 18 What are the trends in belt use among the three observed road groups?... 20 Do the types of vehicles driven vary by road type?... 21 What is the belt use rate by road type for trucks?... 22 What is the belt use rate for trucks by county?... 23 What is the belt use rate by age group (drivers only)?... 25 Distracted Driving... 26 Phone Text and Other Distractions... 26 Phone Text and Other Distractions, by Age Group... 27 Belt Use by County, Weighted by DVMT Proportions... 28 What are the belt use rates by county for all vehicles, drivers and passengers?... 28 What are the belt use rates by county for S1200 roads only?... 30 What are the belt use rates by county for S1200 roads only, using 2 and three-year rolling averages?... 32 Graph Displaying Ranked County Results, S1200 Road Only - Typically State and US Highways (No weights necessary)... 34 CONCLUSIONS... 35 [Type text]
SUMMARY OF RESULTS Changes in the Survey Method: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued new Uniform Criteria for State Observational Surveys of Seat Belt Use. The final rule was published in Federal Register Vol. 76 No. 63, April 1, 2011, Rules and Regulations, pp. 18042 18059. Kansas submitted to NHTSA a new survey design in December 2011, which was subsequently approved March 16 th, 2012. Kansas implemented the new survey, beginning in 2012. The new survey is fully compliant with the Uniform Criteria. The primary differences between the old and new survey methods are as follows: The new survey: Is fatality-based, rather than population-based; Now is conducted in 35 counties, rather than 20 counties; Is conducted in 544 sites, rather than 548 sites; Uses a sample drawn from three road types from a federal road segment database, rather than 10 road types collapsed into six road groups from the Kansas roads database. Uses a different method for data analysis. One of the basic reasons for moving to a fatality-based, rather than population-based county sample is to expand the surveys into more rural counties, which have historically produced a disproportionate number of fatalities. We also know from historical data that rural counties tend to produce a lower belt-use rate than urban counties. For these reasons, all things being equal (and they seldom are) it would not be a surprise if the belt use rate was lower under the new rule, than it was in previous studies. So, because of these changes in method, it is difficult to say if the results beginning in the 2012 survey are directly comparable to the previous thirteen years. It will take a few years of additional data collection to determine the actual trend in survey results. 1
Summary Statements: Kansas produced a belt use rate of 86% in 2014, up five percentage points from 2013, the second year of the new rule. (The actual state-wide estimate of safety belt use in 2014 for drivers and outboard passengers was 85.74%, which rounds to 86%.) Historic trends: The State of Kansas has produced a twenty-three-percentage point increase from 2001 to 2011 the last year under the old rule. Kansas trailed the nation by about 15 percentage points in belt use in 2003, but closed the gap to one percentage point by 2011. Kansas ranked 41 st in belt use in 2013, among the 50 states, and the District of Columbia. (Most recent ranking data available) Note: Not all states adopted the new survey method in 2012. Many states were given an extension, and were allowed to implement their new surveys in 2013. Because the new surveys were fatality-based rather than population-based, the samples under the new rule were driven into the rural areas more than under the old rule. Because rural belt use is typically lower than urban belt use, the belt use rates often are lower the first year of the implementation of the new rule. Because of this mix of old and new methods in 2012 and 2013, it may be a few years before the state rankings stabilize. The state rankings should not be entirely trusted until this mix of methods has had a few years to become comparable. It should also be noted that the design of the national, NOPUS study has not changed, further confounding the comparison between the state numbers, and the national belt use rate. 2014 Survey Results: Though the shift to the new survey method makes it difficult to compare trends over time, at least for the next few years, most patterns within the data remained consistent. Among those patterns: Women are more likely to be belted than men. Trucks, which account for a little more than one in five vehicles observed, produce a substantially lower belt use rate (76%) than other vehicles (90%-93%), and male truck drivers are the lowest single category of belt users (76%). Rural counties tend to produce a lower belt use rate than urban counties. And, finally, the more local the trip, the less likely occupants are to be buckled up. Among all drivers, about 5.5% were observed using a cell phone, about 1.4% are texting, dialing, or are otherwise looking at a cell phone while driving, and about 3% are displaying other forms of distracted driving, including eating, looking for something, adjusting the sound system, etc. About 90% of drivers displayed no distraction while observed. Among the younger drivers the most distracted group, about 88% of drivers display no distraction (down 3 percentage points in the last year). 2
Law Enforcement produced a belt use rate of about 92%. Specifics: The state-wide estimate of safety belt use in 2014 for drivers and outboard passengers was 85.74%, which rounds to 86%. (n = 68,161 vehicles, and 89,988 drivers and frontoutboard passengers were observed). This is the third year using the new survey method. Demographics: Autos comprise about 43% of all observed vehicles, followed by SUV s (26%), then trucks (22%). Vans are the smallest group (9%). Autos have consistently been the largest single observed vehicle type. However, since 2002, occupants seem to be shifting away from autos and vans, (and maybe trucks) into SUV s, the proportion of which has increased each and every year. In 2011, for the first time, there were more SUV s (23%) observed than trucks (22%), a trend that continues. Males, though they represent about half the population, are drivers in about 63% of the observed vehicles, while about 37% of the drivers were female. Those drivers described as Middle Age comprised about 69% of the observed drivers, while Younger drivers contributed about 16% of the observations. The observed group described as Older contributed about 16% of the observed drivers. Belt Use Rates: Unweighted Data: Note: While the belt use rate for the State of Kansas, (when corrected for over and underreporting by county, and road type/segment length) is about 86%, the raw, unweighted belt use rate is about 88%. The following comparisons are calculated using raw, unweighted data, treating all counties and sites as one pool. This is a valid means of comparing relative differences between groups, but may not exactly reflect population estimates. Front-outboard passengers display the higher belt use rate (92%), while drivers are belted in about 87% of the observations. Those in SUV s use their belts at the highest rate (93%), followed by autos (90%), closely followed by vans (90%), and distantly followed by trucks (76%). In fact, belt use in trucks is about 12-14 percentage points lower than the other vehicle types. Though belt use rates among all vehicles have increased since 2002, belt use rates in trucks have always been substantially lower than in the other three types of observed 3
vehicles. However, belt use in trucks has increased the most since 2002 (35 percentage points), followed by SUV belt use (an increase of 28 percentage points), followed by belt use in autos (an increase of 27 percentage points), and finally vans (an increase of 22 percentage points). For all vehicle types, those in vehicles driven by females consistently use their belts at a higher rate than when the driver is male. The differences are greatest in trucks, where the belt use rates between vehicles driven by males or females differ by about seven percentage points. Interstates and other limited access highways produce the highest belt use rates -- about 90%. They are followed by US, state and county highways (87%), and then by local roads (80%). In general, the more local the trip, the less likely belts are used. Recombining the data since 2007 into comparable road types, interstates and other limited access highways produce the highest belt use rates (84%-92%), followed by US, state and county highways (70%-87%), and then by local roads (62%-80%). In general, the trend has been upward, though Interstates and other limited access highways produced a slight decline in 2013 and 2014. More Truck Specific Results: The proportion of observed autos, vans and SUV s generally remains about the same across road types. However, trucks are more likely to be driven on US, state and county highways than on interstates (or other limited access highways) or local roads. Male truck drivers use their belts at a substantially lower rate (76%) than female truck drivers (85%). Note that trucks account for about one in five of all vehicles observed (22%). The pattern of belt use by road group for trucks is the same as for all vehicles, though the belt use rate is shifted downward for all road groups. The belt use rate for trucks on the local roads is only about 66%. Belt use rates from trucks only, by county (unweighted) ranges from about 95% in Seward County, to about 44% in Greenwood County in 2014. Belt Use by Age Group: Older drivers are belted at the highest rate (89%), followed by middle age drivers (88%). The younger drivers are belted at the lowest rate (85%). Law Enforcement Belt Use: 4
Overall, drivers and front, outboard passengers in law enforcement vehicles yielded a belt use rate of 92%. Belt use for drivers was 93%, while the belt use rate for front, outboard passengers was 84%. There were 195 people observed in LE vehicles 176 were drivers and 19 were passengers. Distracted Driving: Among all drivers about 5.5% were observed using a cell phone, about 1.4% are texting, dialing, or are otherwise looking at a cell phone while driving, and about 3% are displaying other forms of distracted driving, including eating, looking for something, adjusting the sound system, etc. About 90% of drivers displayed no distraction while observed. Younger drivers exhibit slightly higher levels of distraction (especially texting), followed by middle aged drivers. Older drivers display the lowest levels of distraction while driving. Even among the younger drivers the most distracted group, about 88% of drivers display no distraction. Note: The differences between middle age and younger drivers are narrowing. Middle age drivers were observed on the phone more than younger drivers, and overall, distractions are up a bit about one percentage point, overall. Belt Use by County, Weighted by DVMT Proportions Belt use rates, by county (weighted by DVMT proportions) range from about 95% in Seward County, to about 61% in Greenwood County in 2014. Belt Use by County, S1200 Roads Only, Using Three-Year Rolling Average Using only data collected on road type S1200 typically US, state and county highways, the only road type observed in all 35 counties, and using a three-year average (2012-2014), Seward County produced the highest belt use rate (94%), while Greenwood County produced the lowest (63%). 5
INTRODUCTION TO SUPPLEMENTARY RESULTS The following supplementary analyses are conducted in addition to the primary analysis which contains the results for the 2014 Direct Observation Safety Belt Survey. The primary analyses contain the state-wide estimate of safety belt use for drivers and front-outboard passengers, as required by the NHTSA-approved safety belt method, as defined in the new Uniform Criteria for State Observational Surveys of Seat Belt Use. Also, the required standard error of the state-wide study must be less than 5%. The 2014 error rate was.973%. The following analyses are an investigation of what can be learned from the data, beyond the required estimates. These results are drawn from the 2014 data, and include 68,161 observed vehicles, and 89,988 drivers and front-outboard passengers. 6
RESULTS How does the Kansas belt use rate compare to the national average? Safety belt use in Kansas is measured by the NHTSA-approved safety belt method, in compliance with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requirements, and adheres to Federal Register 23 CFR Part 1340 Uniform Criteria for State Observational Surveys for Seat Belt Use. The new rule took effect Friday, April 1, 2011. Note that this is a change in survey method. As of 2012, the Kansas Summer Study is now conducted in 35 counties (20 previously), is conducted using three road segment categories (instead of 10 collapsed into six), and contains a number of data collection and analysis changes. As a result it is difficult to make a direct comparison with previous years. Understanding these limitations, the State-wide safety belt use in Kansas, and the nation, over the past number of years is as follows: Kansas produced a belt use rate of 86% in 2014, up five percentage points from 2013, This is the 3 rd year under the new rule. (The actual state-wide estimate of safety belt use in 2014 for drivers and outboard passengers was 85.74%, which rounds to 86%.) 7
What are the belt use rates by county for S1200 roads only? When comparing belt use rates across counties, the results can be misleading because, as we know from a previous graph, belt use rates are a function of road type. S1100 roads, which are Interstates and other divided, limited access highways produce the highest belt use rate 90% in 2014, followed by S1200 roads, which are US, state and county highways with at-grade intersections (87% in 2014), and finally local roads, which may be rural, gravel, and other limited use roads (80% in 2014). Therefore, for example, counties with interstates running through them can produce higher county belt use numbers, just as a function of having the interstate present. The point is, comparing counties with different combinations of road types makes comparisons complicated and difficult to understand. So, to produce a better comparison, the table on the following page displays the results of the S1200 roads (US, state and county highways with atgrade intersections). This road type is present in all 35 observed counties (8 sites per county), and is the only road type observed in all 35 counties. These data are displayed for the years 2012, 2013 and 2014, which are the three years that use the new survey design. The results are displayed alphabetically, by county name. 30
S1200 Only (US, State and County Highways) 2012-2014 County Co Code 2012 2013 2014 Atchison AT 79.15% 70.63% 77.95% Barton BT 80.42% 72.51% 90.16% Butler BU 83.00% 83.45% 86.81% Chase CS 78.28% 79.09% 75.61% Cherokee CK 84.59% 81.70% 91.00% Cowley CL 82.61% 81.15% 84.48% Crawford CR 83.90% 83.19% 93.96% Douglas DG 90.87% 97.84% 90.87% Ellis EL 79.96% 86.26% 88.55% Ford FO 87.06% 83.76% 89.16% Franklin FR 85.05% 82.66% 88.05% Geary GE 83.62% 82.43% 89.57% Gray GY 68.42% 84.05% 77.27% Greenwood GW 69.87% 57.28% 60.93% Harvey HV 85.44% 80.82% 84.08% Jefferson JF 85.47% 85.83% 80.14% Johnson JO 86.10% 88.38% 91.20% Kearny KE 78.04% 71.78% 78.40% Labette LB 83.14% 81.92% 92.25% Leavenworth LV 85.91% 83.50% 86.65% Lyon LY 70.44% 78.57% 75.10% McPherson MP 74.62% 75.48% 70.95% Miami MI 90.53% 90.86% 86.81% Montgomery MG 82.40% 81.14% 93.00% Ness NS 68.10% 62.66% 64.63% Reno RN 85.24% 68.91% 84.67% Riley RL 81.25% 85.60% 83.23% Rush RH 79.44% 79.82% 85.83% Saline SA 84.59% 79.02% 92.63% Sedgwick SG 92.41% 92.08% 94.41% Seward SW 91.74% 94.95% 95.18% Shawnee SN 87.55% 88.28% 84.43% Sumner SU 73.51% 80.05% 76.01% Thomas TH 74.60% 81.17% 77.09% Wyandotte WY 83.81% 86.89% 90.60% 31
What are the belt use rates by county for S1200 roads only, using 2 and three-year rolling averages? Because the county data can be somewhat erratic from year-to-year, it is important to attempt to smooth out the data, yielding more stable results. An easy way to do that is to produce rolling averages. The table on the following page displays the county-by-county results, using two year rolling average, and an average of all three years. The data are sorted by the three-year average. The county belt use rates, using the three-year average (2012 2014) from S1200 roads only, range from Seward County s 94% to Greenwood County s 63%. 32
County S1200 Only (US, State and County Highways) Co Average Average Three-Year Average Code 2012-2013 2013-2014 (2012-2013) Seward SW 93.35% 95.07% 93.96% Douglas DG 94.36% 94.36% 93.19% Sedgwick SG 92.25% 93.25% 92.97% Miami MI 90.70% 88.84% 89.40% Johnson JO 87.24% 89.79% 88.56% Wyandotte WY 85.35% 88.75% 87.10% Crawford CR 83.55% 88.58% 87.02% Shawnee SN 87.92% 86.36% 86.75% Ford FO 85.41% 86.46% 86.66% Labette LB 82.53% 87.09% 85.77% Cherokee CK 83.15% 86.35% 85.76% Montgomery MG 81.77% 87.07% 85.51% Saline SA 81.81% 85.83% 85.41% Leavenworth LV 84.71% 85.08% 85.35% Franklin FR 83.86% 85.36% 85.25% Geary GE 83.03% 86.00% 85.21% Ellis EL 83.11% 87.41% 84.92% Butler BU 83.23% 85.13% 84.42% Jefferson JF 85.65% 82.99% 83.81% Harvey HV 83.13% 82.45% 83.45% Riley RL 83.43% 84.42% 83.36% Cowley CL 81.88% 82.82% 82.75% Rush RH 79.63% 82.83% 81.70% Barton BT 76.47% 81.34% 81.03% Reno RN 77.08% 76.79% 79.61% Chase CS 78.69% 77.35% 77.66% Thomas TH 77.89% 79.13% 77.62% Gray GY 76.24% 80.66% 76.58% Sumner SU 76.78% 78.03% 76.52% Kearny KE 74.91% 75.09% 76.07% Atchison AT 74.89% 74.29% 75.91% Lyon LY 74.51% 76.84% 74.70% McPherson MP 75.05% 73.22% 73.68% Ness NS 65.38% 63.65% 65.13% Greenwood GW 63.58% 59.11% 62.69% 33
Graph Displaying Ranked County Results, S1200 Road Only - Typically State and US Highways (No weights necessary) Using only data collected on road type S1200 typically US, state and county highways, the only road type observed in all 35 counties, and using a three-year average (2012-2014), Seward County produced the highest belt use rate (94%), while Greenwood County produced the lowest (63%). 34
CONCLUSIONS Kansas produced a belt use rate of 86% in 2014, up five percentage points from 2013. (The actual state-wide estimate of safety belt use in 2014 for drivers and outboard passengers was 85.74%, which rounds to 86%.) Historic trends: The State of Kansas has produced a twenty-three-percentage point increase from 2001 to 2011 the last year under the old rule. Kansas trailed the nation by about 15 percentage points in belt use in 2003, but closed the gap to one percentage point by 2011. Kansas ranked 41 st in belt use in 2013, among the 50 states, and the District of Columbia. (Most recent ranking data available) 2014 Summary Results: Though the shift to the new survey method makes it difficult to compare trends over time, at least for the next few years, most patterns within the data remained consistent. Among those patterns: Women are more likely to be belted than men. Trucks, which account for a little more than one in five vehicles observed, produce a substantially lower belt use rate (76%) than other vehicles (90%-93%), and male truck drivers are the lowest single category of belt users (76%). Rural counties tend to produce a lower belt use rate than urban counties. And, finally, the more local the trip, the less likely occupants are to be buckled up. Among all drivers, about 5.5% were observed using a cell phone, about 1.4% are texting, dialing, or are otherwise looking at a cell phone while driving, and about 3% are displaying other forms of distracted driving, including eating, looking for something, adjusting the sound system, etc. About 90% of drivers displayed no distraction while observed. Among the younger drivers the most distracted group, about 88% of drivers display no distraction (down 3 percentage points in the last year). Law Enforcement produced a belt use rate of about 92%. 35
Buckle Up: Restraint Use in KANSAS MOTOR VEHICLE OCCUPANT DEATHS Keep Kansas safe. Encourage drivers and passengers to buckle up. This fact sheet provides a snapshot of motor vehicle occupant deaths and seat belt use and an overview of proven strategies for increasing the use of seat belts, car seats, and booster seats. The information can help local public health decisionmakers and community partners see gaps and identify relevant strategies to encourage people to buckle up. Number of Deaths, 2003 2012 3,473 motor vehicle occupants were killed in Kansas Rate of Deaths by Age (per 100,000 population), 2012 NATIONAL KANSAS 4.0 7.5 0-20 10.8 13.9 21-34 6.8 10.7 35-54 8.1 55+ 13.1 7.0 11.0 All ages Rate of Deaths by Gender (per 100,000 population), 2012 Fast Facts Male 9.4 Female 4.7 Motor vehicle crashes are a leading cause of death during the first three decades of Americans lives. Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). 15.1 6.7 By wearing seat belts and properly buckling children into age- and size-appropriate car seats and booster seats, people can reduce the risk of serious injury and death in a crash by half. RESTRAINT USE Percentage of Drivers and Front Seat Passengers Wearing Seat Belts NATIONAL KANSAS Although most drivers in the United States follow these safety measures on every trip, there are still millions who don t. 86% wear seat belts 80% wear seat belts These data show what s happening in your state. Source: National Occupant Protection Use Survey (NOPUS), 2012. Source: State Observational Survey of Seat Belt Use, 2012. Working together, we can help keep people safe on the road every day.
KANSAS SEAT BELT AND CHILD RESTRAINT LAWS Drivers and adult front seat passengers must wear seat belts in the District of Columbia and all states except New Hampshire. In Kansas, seat belt laws are primary for drivers and front seat passengers and for passengers age 14-17 in all seats. The laws are secondary for rear seat passengers age 18 and older. Child restraint laws vary by state. For up-to-date information on these laws in your state, check with the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety at www.iihs.org. What Works The strategies in this section are effective for increasing seat belt, car seat, and booster seat use. They are recommended by The Guide to Community Preventive Services and/or have been demonstrated to be effective in reviews by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.* Different strategies may require different resources for implementation or have different levels of impact. Find strategies that are right for your state. Strategies to increase seat belt use Primary seat belt laws allow police officers to stop and ticket someone for not buckling up. On average, primary laws result in higher rates of seat belt use than secondary seat belt laws, which allow officers to give tickets only if they have pulled the driver over for another reason. Seat belt laws are most effective when they cover occupants in all seats of the vehicle. Increased penalties for violating seat belt laws may include higher fines or points on a driver s license. Short-term, high-visibility enforcement involves a brief period of increased police efforts including checkpoints or saturation patrols. These efforts are highly publicized through a media campaign that mixes both earned media coverage and paid advertisements. Combining law enforcement and media coverage is particularly effective for reaching people who typically don t use seat belts regularly, such as men, teens, and young adults. Combined nighttime enforcement programs are short-term, highly visible enforcement strategies. They are conducted at night, when seat belt use is lowest and crashes are most common. They are combined with enforcement of other laws, such as impaired driving laws. This can help law enforcement target limited funding and resources for the greatest public safety impact. Strategies to increase car seat and booster seat use For More Information Visit the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site at www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety for: Injuries, costs, and other data on motor vehicle crashes Detailed information on effective strategies to improve seat belt use Detailed information on effective strategies to improve child passenger safety Child restraint laws require children riding in a car to use approved restraint devices (car seats, booster seats, or seat belts) appropriate for their age, height, and weight. Strengthening current laws with booster seat provisions helps reduce injuries and deaths by requiring children who have outgrown car seats to use booster seats through age 8 years or until seat belts fit properly. Enhanced enforcement programs for child passenger safety are similar to those used for seat belt use (see above). Effective programs are short-term, highly visible in the community, and advertised widely in the media. Distribution plus education programs help parents and caregivers get access to car seats through giveaways, loans, or low-cost rentals. They also teach the importance of car seats and how to properly use and install them. Incentive and education programs reward parents or children with coupons or other prizes for correctly using car seats. Programs offer print materials, videos, or other instructional aids for parents and caregivers. *Sources: The Guide to Community Preventive Services (The Community Guide), Motor Vehicle-Related Injury Prevention, at www.thecommunityguide.org, and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2013). Countermeasures that work: a highway safety countermeasures guide for State Highway Safety Offices, 7th edition, at www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/811727.pdf. Find this and other state-specific information at www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/states. Updated: December 2014
Buckle Up: Restraint Use in MISSOURI MOTOR VEHICLE OCCUPANT DEATHS Keep Missouri safe. Encourage drivers and passengers to buckle up. This fact sheet provides a snapshot of motor vehicle occupant deaths and seat belt use and an overview of proven strategies for increasing the use of seat belts, car seats, and booster seats. The information can help local public health decisionmakers and community partners see gaps and identify relevant strategies to encourage people to buckle up. Number of Deaths, 2003 2012 8,073 motor vehicle occupants were killed in Missouri Rate of Deaths by Age (per 100,000 population), 2012 NATIONAL MISSOURI 4.0 5.5 0-20 10.8 15.3 21-34 6.8 11.6 35-54 8.1 55+ 10.4 7.0 10.2 All ages Rate of Deaths by Gender (per 100,000 population), 2012 Fast Facts Male 9.4 Female 4.7 Motor vehicle crashes are a leading cause of death during the first three decades of Americans lives. Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). 14.2 6.3 By wearing seat belts and properly buckling children into age- and size-appropriate car seats and booster seats, people can reduce the risk of serious injury and death in a crash by half. RESTRAINT USE Percentage of Drivers and Front Seat Passengers Wearing Seat Belts NATIONAL MISSOURI Although most drivers in the United States follow these safety measures on every trip, there are still millions who don t. 86% wear seat belts 79% wear seat belts These data show what s happening in your state. Source: National Occupant Protection Use Survey (NOPUS), 2012. Source: State Observational Survey of Seat Belt Use, 2012. Working together, we can help keep people safe on the road every day.
MISSOURI SEAT BELT AND CHILD RESTRAINT LAWS Drivers and adult front seat passengers must wear seat belts in the District of Columbia and all states except New Hampshire. In Missouri, seat belt laws are secondary. They cover drivers and front seat passengers age 16 and older. The laws are primary for passengers younger than 16 years in all seats. Child restraint laws vary by state. For up-to-date information on these laws in your state, check with the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety at www.iihs.org. What Works The strategies in this section are effective for increasing seat belt, car seat, and booster seat use. They are recommended by The Guide to Community Preventive Services and/or have been demonstrated to be effective in reviews by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.* Different strategies may require different resources for implementation or have different levels of impact. Find strategies that are right for your state. Strategies to increase seat belt use Primary seat belt laws allow police officers to stop and ticket someone for not buckling up. On average, primary laws result in higher rates of seat belt use than secondary seat belt laws, which allow officers to give tickets only if they have pulled the driver over for another reason. Seat belt laws are most effective when they cover occupants in all seats of the vehicle. Increased penalties for violating seat belt laws may include higher fines or points on a driver s license. Short-term, high-visibility enforcement involves a brief period of increased police efforts including checkpoints or saturation patrols. These efforts are highly publicized through a media campaign that mixes both earned media coverage and paid advertisements. Combining law enforcement and media coverage is particularly effective for reaching people who typically don t use seat belts regularly, such as men, teens, and young adults. Combined nighttime enforcement programs are short-term, highly visible enforcement strategies. They are conducted at night, when seat belt use is lowest and crashes are most common. They are combined with enforcement of other laws, such as impaired driving laws. This can help law enforcement target limited funding and resources for the greatest public safety impact. Strategies to increase car seat and booster seat use For More Information Visit the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site at www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety for: Injuries, costs, and other data on motor vehicle crashes Detailed information on effective strategies to improve seat belt use Detailed information on effective strategies to improve child passenger safety Child restraint laws require children riding in a car to use approved restraint devices (car seats, booster seats, or seat belts) appropriate for their age, height, and weight. Strengthening current laws with booster seat provisions helps reduce injuries and deaths by requiring children who have outgrown car seats to use booster seats through age 8 years or until seat belts fit properly. Enhanced enforcement programs for child passenger safety are similar to those used for seat belt use (see above). Effective programs are short-term, highly visible in the community, and advertised widely in the media. Distribution plus education programs help parents and caregivers get access to car seats through giveaways, loans, or low-cost rentals. They also teach the importance of car seats and how to properly use and install them. Incentive and education programs reward parents or children with coupons or other prizes for correctly using car seats. Programs offer print materials, videos, or other instructional aids for parents and caregivers. *Sources: The Guide to Community Preventive Services (The Community Guide), Motor Vehicle-Related Injury Prevention, at www.thecommunityguide.org, and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2013). Countermeasures that work: a highway safety countermeasures guide for State Highway Safety Offices, 7th edition, at www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/811727.pdf. Find this and other state-specific information at www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/states. Updated: December 2014
DS Region 2009 2013 Fatalities Serious Injuries '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 13 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 13 F SI F SI Totals 233 199 211 182 233 200 1654 1528 1575 1564 1463 1,429 1025 7559 100% 100% Infrastructure Lane Departure Run Off Road 156 138 155 124 154 98 793 712 737 705 672 511 669 3337 63.2% 42.9% Lane Departure Fixed Object 115 100 112 84 114 105 599 536 542 531 537 426 515 2572 48.7% 33.0% Lane Departure Head On 32 23 24 29 23 11 124 86 97 111 128 105 110 527 10.4% 6.8% Horizontal Curves 54 36 52 51 54 58 336 277 275 287 243 254 251 1336 23.7% 17.2% Intersection 52 44 46 34 51 34 573 572 552 607 517 494 209 2742 19.8% 35.2% Driver Behavior Aggressive 97 102 84 61 88 75 558 480 489 509 464 410 410 2352 38.8% 30.2% Seat Belt Use (Unrestrained) 104 87 84 64 98 81 355 352 290 260 266 255 414 1423 39.1% 18.3% Impaired 81 80 56 49 64 63 245 264 224 230 182 197 312 1097 29.5% 14.1% Unlicensed, Revoked, or Suspended D 45 48 47 45 54 45 211 237 294 230 279 264 239 1304 22.6% 16.8% Distracted 47 29 36 23 29 25 376 420 392 370 291 260 142 1733 13.4% 22.3% Special Users Young Drivers (15 24) Motorcycles/Mopeds Older Drivers (65+) Pedestrian Large Trucks 81 72 68 53 72 59 700 642 663 607 589 529 324 3030 30.6% 38.9% 35 33 25 33 35 30 210 189 184 184 229 160 156 946 14.7% 12.2% 26 25 35 27 40 38 193 195 271 229 187 200 165 1082 15.6% 13.9% 25 20 18 22 34 23 88 74 90 99 69 88 117 420 11.1% 5.4% 23 18 25 18 22 24 143 87 98 106 73 102 107 466 10.1% 6.0%