Report No. Author(s) B. Charles Report Date 5 pages Organization Name and Address" Performing Transportation Research Council Virginia Edgemont Road 5 Virginia 9-87 Charlottesville, Agencies' Names and Addresses Sponsoring Department of Transportation Virginia E. Broad Street Virginia 9 Richmond, Virginia 9 No.: Project 979--9 survey observational urban Dept. of Motor Vehicles Va. Safety Administration Transportation Box 7 P.O. VA 69 Richmond, surveys of child safety seat use were conducted at the request of Observational Transportation Safety Administration of the Department of Motor Vehicles. the position in the car for children judged by the survey team to require safety seats under child seat use was higher (5.6%) in the rear seats of cars than in the Correct seats (.8%). For the entire car, only 8.9% of the children were in a correctly front used child seat, ::.6% of the child occupants were not in a data also showed variations in the pattern of among the four areas of the state. use Standard Title Page- Report on State Project Report: Type Report Final No. Pages Period Covered: VTRC 9-R Contract No.: June 99 HB9-7-557 Summer 99 Words Key seat use child Title and Subtitle Direct Observation of the Use of Child Safety Seats in Metropolitan A of Virginia During Summer 99 Areas metropolitan Stoke of Virginia University Charlottesville Notes Supplementary None Abstract survey was conducted in the four areas of the state with the largest popula- present data were categorized as correct use, incorrect use, and no use for each seat tions. state law. safety seat, and 7.5% of the seats were obviously misused. a rate of incorrect use was probably underestimated by this survey. re is need to address the problems of non-use and incorrect use through increased educa- tion and enforcement efforts on the part of the state and localities.
B. Stoke Charles Research Scientist Senior 99 June 9-R VTRC FINAL REPORT DIRECT OBSERVATION OF THE USE OF CHILD SAFETY SEATS IN A AREAS OF VIRGINIA DURING SUMMER 99 METROPOLITAN opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this ( are those of the author and not necessarily report those of the sponsoring agencies.) Transportation Research Council Virginia Cooperative Organization Sponsored Jointly by the (A Department of Transportation and Virginia University of Virginia) the Charlottesville, Virginia
University Commonwealth L. BUTNER, Traffic Engineering Division Administrator, VDOT J. J. K. COOKE, Assistant Chief of Law Enforcement, Dept. of Game and MAJ. Fisheries Inland S. FELTON, JR., Administrative Coordinator, Commonwealth's Attorneys' W. and Training Council Services D. FERRARA, Ph.D., Director, Division of Forensic Sciences, Dept. of General P. Services R. GEHR, Commissioner, Virginia Department of Transportation D. T. HANNA, Assistant Professor, Transportation Safety Training Center, J. Administration P. J. LANTEIGNE, Operations & Tactics Bureau, Virginia Beach Police SGT. D. McHENRY, Director, Division of Emergency Medical Services, Dept. of S. Health R. P. MINER, Commander, Traffic Division, Fairfax County Police Dept. MAJ. S. E. NEWTON, Commander, Patrol Division, Albemarle County Police LT. Police A. SPENCER, ESQ., Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General J. W. TIMMONS, Director of Public Affairs, Tidewater AAA of Virginia E. R. WOODROOF, ESQ., Manakin-Sabot, Virginia A. SAFETY RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE H. LEIGHTY, Chairman, Deputy Commissioner, Dept. of Motor Vehicles W. D. JERNIGAN, Executive Secretary, Senior Research Scientist, VTRC J. AUSTIN, Transportation Engineering Program Supervisor, Dept. of Rail & D. Transportation Public L. BLAND, Chief Engineer, Dept. of Aviation J. J. BREITENBACH, Director, Transportation Safety Training Center, Virginia R. L. CROZIER, Associate Specialist, Driver Education, Virginia Dept. of V. Education Commonwealth University Virginia A. JENNINGS, Safety/Technology Transfer Coordinator, Federal Highway T. Dept. T. McCOLLUM, Executive Director, Commission on VASAP W. Department T. PHIPPS, Director, Roanoke Valley ASAP J. LT. COL. C. M. ROBINSON, Director, Bureau of Field Operations, Dept. of State
Transportation Safety Administration of the Department of Motor requested observational surveys of child safety seat use. present Vehicles was conducted in the four areas of the state with the largest populations. survey data were categorized as correct use, incorrect use, and no use for each child seat use was higher (5.6%) in the rear seats of cars than in Correct front seats (.8%). For the entire car, only 8.9% of the children were in a the rate of incorrect use was probably underestimated by this survey. is a need to address the problems of non-use and incorrect use through re education and enforcement efforts on the part of the state and locali- increased ties. ABSTRACT seat position in the car for children judged by the survey team to require safety seats under state law. used child seat,.6% of the child occupants were not in a safety seat, correctly 7.5% of the seats were obviously misused. data also showed varia- and tions in the pattern of use among the four areas of the state. iii
DIRECT OBSERVATION OF THE USE OF CHILD SAFETY SEATS IN A AREAS OF VIRGINIA DURING SUMMER 99 METROPOLITAN B. Stoke Charles Research Scientist Senior on the use of safety belts in Virginia were first collected from 97 Data 977 in the four metropolitan areas of the state: the Roanoke Valley through collection was suspended from 978 to 98 due to a perceived lack of Data by the state's highway safety program for data on belt use. With the pas- need of the Child Safety Seat Law in 98 (effective date January, 98), sage of Motor Vehicles officials requested the collection of data on the Department of child safety seats and safety belts. A safety belt and child safety seat sur- use began in March 98, with additional surveys in June and October 98. vey the years, the number of data collection sites has increased to make Over data representative of statewide use rates. During the first 8 years (97- the and 98-986) 7 sites, strictly in urban areas, were used. In 987, 977 were added in communities with populations below 5,. In 99, addi- sites type of data collected has also changed. From 98 through 985, seat use was recorded as "yes" and "no," with the "no" response including child use. From 986 to the present, child seat use has been recorded as incorrect use, incorrect use, and no use. In 99, data collection on the sex of the correct occupant was discontinued and that for ethnic group was added. these surveys, the reported rate of use was influenced by a number of In including the way the data were collected and the amount and type of factors, 98-985, when child seat use From recorded as "yes" and "no," correct use varied from 57. percent to 6.9 was FINAL REPORT INTRODUCTION Richmond/ Henrico/ Chesterfield (Central), Norfolk/Virginia Beach/ (Western), (Eastern), and Fairfax County/Arlington/Alexandria (Northern). Hampton belt and child safety seat use data have been collected at least annually Safety then. since tional sites were added in the urban areas, and in 99 sites were added in cit- ies with populations between 5, and,. By 99, there were a total 5 sites. number of sites in each area was based on the proportion of the of population that lived in the area surveyed. state training given to the observers (Figure ).
x,,. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::. Incorrect None 987 988 989 99 99 99 986 Area for incorrect use, and the reported rate of correct child seat use checking to. percent. While the observers must undergo training every year, dropped were in-traffic surveys and the observers could not enter the vehi- se to check for installation characteristics. Only non-use and misuses obvious cles outside the vehicle could be determined. This procedure is likely to under- from incorrect use. estimate Transportation Safety Training Center at Virginia Commonwealth as part of its training program in correct child seat installation, car- University, out a number of surveys at shopping centers and day care centers where ried actually entered the car to check the child seats. se surveys were trainees 9O 8O 7 6. ' 5 O O :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 98 98 985 Figure. Rates of child safety seat use for the 98-99 period. In 986, the first year in which incorrect use was recorded separately, percent. use was reported at 68.9 percent. In 987, because the state safety belt correct force suspected that the reported rate of correct use was artificially high, a task training program was conducted for the observers which emphasized special there has been no special emphasis on incorrect use since 987. Over the past years, reported rates for correct child seat use have varied from 57. percent 5 8.8 percent, with the peak occurring in 99. In 99, the highest rate of to incorrect use (7.9 percent) was recorded since the special training in 987. not intended to be representative of the general population of the state or of the area in which they were conducted. In addition, the Community Traffic Safety
Program in DMV District 5 (Tidewater) has sponsored a number of safety seat in the data, both groups found an extremely high rate of misuse, with the biases common (modal) rate being 88 percent, and with a misuse range from 75 most 9 percent. When it is possible to enter the vehicle to check for correct to most child seats are categorized as misused. se data probably installation, the rate of incorrect use among the general population of the state, overestimate of the manner in which the sites and vehicles were selected. because the passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act With 99 (ISTEA), data collection procedures in Virginia were modified to conform of Federal Guidelines. This change was required by the National Highway Traf- to Safety Administration (NHTSA) before accepting any statewide use rates as fic required that data be collected from moving vehicles, in lanes other than lines curb lane, at both signalized and non-signalized intersections, and that the the Department of Motor Vehicles requested that a survey solely of child seat use be conducted during the summer of 99 to determine the rate safety use of child safety seats by both front and rear seat occupants who were of four years old and riding in passenger cars. project was limited to under collecting data only in the four metropolitan areas of the state. in the Western area. use of shopping centers and day care centers was considered, but when a sample of these locations was checked at various also of day, they either had inadequate traffic volume or evident socioeconomic times bias. checks where the car was entered. se activities also were not designed to be representative of the general Tidewater population. While acknowledging the qualifying the state for ISTEA Section 5 incentive funds. federal guide- use or non-use of the shoulder belt be considered to determine whether the occupant was correctly belted. In making the required changes, the state lost the ability to determine use rates of child safety seats, because in following the federal guidelines a child seat cannot be properly observed. PURPOSE AND SCOPE METHOD child safety seat use data were collected at signalized intersections at sites in the Northern area, in the Eastern area, 7 in the Central area, and
only from passenger cars in the curb travel lane (dedicated turn lanes lected not considered as travel lanes), and no distinction was made between Vir- were an orange vest. Each member of the survey team observed up to 5 and cars traffic light cycle, with traffic volume determining the number of cars sur- per data were collected only from cars that had an occupant of the proper seats, Survey team members completed a training program in data collection and age. identify the factors that constituted correct and incorrect use. the age of four" years. Because this was an in-traffic survey, two indices were to help determine whether the child occupant was part of the survey popu- used first was contained in previous versions of the Code, where required lation. seat users were defined as weighing lbs. or less. second child devel- was as an aid to police officers, where a required child seat user was defined oped as inches tall or less. being program for survey team members. training Age, weight, and height factors were included in the seat use was recorded as correct (C), incorrect (I), or non-use (N) Child ). Only those features easily identifiable from outside the vehicle were (Figure to determine whether safety seat use was correct or incorrect. se fea- used included the use or non-use of arm bars/shields, assuring that the seat tures was properly clipped between the legs of the child, that the seat was harness in the proper direction for the age of the child, and that the lap/shoulder facing Non-use was if there was a child of the proper age in the car and no safety seat was recorded or a seat was present, but was not being used, or a lap belt was being present, used in place of a number of recorded correct, incorrect, and non-users at each site is in the Appendix. individual site data are combined into four sepa- shown area totals and the four area totals are combined into a metropolitan total. rate addition, data are shown for the total car, the front seat, and the rear seat. In re were two persons on the survey team. Child seat data were col- licensed and out-of-state vehicles (the law makes ginia distinction between no categories of vehicles). When the passenger cars stopped for the red sig- these the observers left the curb and approached the nal, from the passenger side car fender. As required by state policy, each team member front a hard hat wore veyed. Because this survey was concerned only with the use of child safety how to Section 6.-95 of the Code of Virginia (COV) applies to "a child under was routed through the child seat. For a response to be recorded as corbelt all features had to be used in the correct manner. Misuse or non-use of rect, any one feature required that the use be recorded as incorrect. safety seat. RESULTS
Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
previous reports published by the Virginia Transportation Research In on the results of safety belt use surveys in Virginia, the correct and Council law enforcement officials interpret the provisions of Section 6.-9 because the COV requiring the use of safety belts to be met by ANY belt use regardless of whether the use is proper or safe. For this report on the use of child safety of correct and incorrect uses are NOT combined. Section 6.-95 of the seats, added) secured in a child restraint device." By keeping these data elements sep- data in Figure show the rates of child safety seat use in cars with occupant under four years old. data are categorized by each metropoli- an Eastern Central Northern Area Correct Incorrect incorrect use rates were combined into a total use figure. This was done COV states that a "child under the age of four [must be] PROPERLY (emphasis the severity of the incorrect use problem can be determined, and state arate, can be developed to address this traffic safety problem. programs Total Car Use tan area surveyed and for all four metropolitan areas combined. When the data for all four metropolitan areas were combined, fewer than half (8.9%) of all children under four years old were observed to be correctly using the required child safety seat. Just over one-third (.6%) of the child occupants were not 9O 8O None 7 O Western Combined Figure. Rates of child seat use for the total vehicle.
identifiable features were used in making the correct or incorrect use easily these data probably underestimate the rate of incorrect use. decision, the data are considered on the basis of the metropolitan area of the When where the survey occurred, correct use in the Northern, Central, and state areas varied by fewer than six percentage points, with rates ranging Western.9 percent to 7.5 percent. Correct use was much higher in the Eastern from non-use areas in the rate of incorrect use than for rates of correct use and non- between Incorrect use was. percent in the Eastern area,.9 percent in the use. area,.9 percent in the Northern area, and. percent in the West- Central area. ern Eastern Central Northern Area Correct Incorrect Because only using a child safety seat, and incorrect use was 7.5 percent. area (57.5%). rates of non-use were similar in the Northern, Eastern, and Central areas with rates between. percent and 8.6 percent. rate was much lower in the Western area (.%). re was more variability Front Seat Use data in Figure show the rates of correct, incorrect, and non-use of child safety seats by occupants under four years old riding in the front seats of 9O 8O None O O Western Combined Figure. Rates of child seat use for the front seats.
passenger cars. the data from each of the four metropolitan areas were combined, When use was.8 percent, incorrect use was 6.8 percent, and non-use was correct percent. re was considerable variability between use rates when the. were examined on a geographical basis. Central area had the highest data rate (7.6%), the Central area had the lowest rate (6.9%), and the difference est rates of use between the Western (7.7%) and the Eastern (6.%) areas was in and the lowest rates were in the Eastern and Central areas (8.% and area Non-use was.8 percent in the Northern area. 7.9%). First, fewer than one- of the children under four years old were riding in the front seats of cars, fourth because there has been considerable publicity advocating the place- possibly seats of cars. show the rates of child safety seat use in the rear the data from each of the four metropolitan areas were combined, When use was 5.6 percent, incorrect use was 7.7 percent, and non-use was correct percent. When the rear seat data were considered on the basis of the met-.7 area of the state surveyed, correct use varied from 6. percent in the ropolitan area to. percent in the Central area. Eastern the Western area and 5. percent in the Northern area. in Incorrect use was percent in the Eastern area, 6.7 percent in the Central area,.6 percent 7.8 the Northern area, and 9. percent in the Western area. Rear seat non-use in varied considerably on a regional basis. non-use rate was as low as 8.7 also in the Western area and as high as 8.9 percent in the Central area. percent in the other two areas more closely followed the pattern of the Central Non-use. percent in the Eastern area and. percent in the Northern area. area; data are categorized for each of the metropolitan areas and for all four areas combined. of correct use (55.%) and the Western area had the lowest rate (.5%). rate use was 6. percent in the Eastern area and 7.6 percent in the North- Correct ern area. When incorrect use was considered, the Northern area had the high- small. non-use data show that the highest rate (58.8%) was in the Western Three factors are readily apparent from the data. ment of children in the rear seats for added safety. Second, over percent of the observed children were not using the required safety seat. Third, for nearly percent of all those observed, the child safety seat was being used in an 7 manner. Again, the seriousness of this third finding is probably incorrect underestimated. Rear Seat Use data in Figure 5 data are tabulated for each metropolitan area and for all four areas combined. Correct use was 5. percent
Correct Incorrect Eastern Central Western Combined Northern Area correct child seat use First, for occupants of the rear seats (5.6%) than for those in the front greater (.8%). Second, non-use is lower in the rear seats (.7%) than in the seats seats (.%). Third, incorrect use is marginally higher in the rear seats front determining the significance of the safety seat data collected since In two issues need to be considered. first concerns the population from 986, the survey sample was drawn and how state and federal programs to which safety seat use might affect use rates. second concerns the encourage and procedures for data collection and whether the change in use methods since 99 was an actual drop in rate or was the result of the way the data rates both federal and state agencies have developed and used a number While safety seat public service announcements and have engaged in other activi- of 9O 8O None 7 O Figure 5. Rates of child seat use for the rear seats. Three factors are discernible from these data. is (7.7%) than in the front seats (6.8%). DISCUSSION were collected.
encourage safety seat use, these programs have been conducted in a that misses a significant portion of the population. Approximately onefashion of the children subject to the provisions of 6.-95 pass out of the fourth data show a significant drop in correct use over the past three years same areas of the state, using the same sites (several sites were moved, but the locations within the same traffic stream), the same two observers were used, to This sug- a real change in rate. re was, however, a change in the survey proce- gests for 99. In 99 and 99, safety seat use was obtained as part of a dures the Virginia data collected during the summer of 99, the findings From summarized as follows: be safety seat use was higher in the rear seats of cars than in the Child seats. front In 7.5 percent of the observations, the child safety seat was easily as being incorrectly used. identified Correct use was highest in the Eastern area and lowest in the North- use was Incorrect area. ern ties to group each year and are replaced by an entirely new age cohort, signifi- age changing the population base. cantly and an increase in non-use. As with any study of use rates relying on survey the question arises whether there was an actual change in rate or procedures, the survey procedures could account for the change. whether In Virginia, the data on safety seat use for 99-99 were collected in and the state had few safety seat programs in the first half of 99. safety belt survey. In 99, safety seat use was the sole purpose of the larger survey team had much more time to study the installation of the survey. seat while the car was stopped and to check for incorrect uses. safety in survey procedures may have accounted for some of the reported change change in use rates, although this cannot be quantified. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS can While nearly two-thirds of the children observed were in a safety seat, than one-half were in a correctly used safety seat. fewer More than one-third of these children were not using the required safety seat. child ern area. lowest in the Eastern area and highest in the West-
was highest in the Central area and lowest in the Western Non-use area. underestimated, because the survey team was the observers had more time to carefully check proper use in 99 Because to the relatively few children observed at each site), the correct (due rates use re is a need to attack the problems of non-use and incorrect use. of the high rates of non-use and incorrect use of child safety Because it is recommended that: seats, state implement a comprehensive statewide educational program the high rate of non-use, especially in the front seats of emphasizing and the consequences of not having the child protected by a child cars, seat. safety state, in cooperation with local communities, develop local pro- to identify incorrect child seat use and the methods to correct grams Each year thank Harold Reavis and Aaron Zdinak, who spent many hours travel- We around the state, working from early morning to late afternoon, including ing CONCLUSIONS rate of incorrect use is able to identify only the most obvious cases from outside the vehicle. in this document are lower than the statewide use rates reported for reported and 99. 99 RECOMMENDATIONS this situation. Local education and enforcement efforts should be ongoing. there is a new group of infants, and efforts to educate parents must be conducted continually. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS weekends, to collect the data used in this report.
APPENDIX
Northern Western Eastern 5 6 7 8 9 Table Child Safety Seat Survey Results 99 6 9 5 8 8 7 5 8 5 8 8 5 8 6 7 6 6 7 8 8 6 9 5 9 9 6 6 7 Front Seat Rear Seat Total Vehicle Site Location N N C C N C 58 5 Northern Area Total 59 7 5 67 Western Area Total 8 8 Central Central Area Total 6 8 8 9 8 Eastern Area Total 58 9 8 9 Urban Total 5 5 95 67 6 6 88 69 5