Frequency Of Belt Use Research Articles

Attitudes Toward Seat Belt Use and In-Vehicle Technologies for Encouraging Belt Use

Objectives: In-vehicle seat belt reminders and interlocks can encourage belt use, but widespread adoption of these features depends on the degree of acceptance among both belted and unbelted occupants. The current study collected information about attitudes toward belt use and in-vehicle technologies for encouraging belt use. Methods: A national telephone survey of 1218 adult drivers and passengers was conducted using random samples of landline and cell phone numbers. Part-time belt users and nonusers were oversampled. All respondents were asked about frequency of belt use, buckling routines, and support for different types of belt interlocks. Part-time belt users and nonusers were queried in more depth about different types of reminders and reminder strategies. Results: Almost all respondents said that they always use their seat belts (91%). Few said that they did not always (8%) or never (1%) used belts. Driving a short distance (67%), forgetting (60%), and comfort (47%) were common reasons why part-time belt users do not buckle up; comfort (77%), not needing a seat belt (54%), and disliking being told what to do (50%) were most frequently cited among nonusers. When asked about various types of belt interlocks, part-time belt users and nonusers most often said that ignition interlocks would make them more likely to buckle up (70% and 44%, respectively). However, only 44 to 51 percent of all respondents, including full-time belt users, supported using the different types of interlocks to increase belt use. A larger proportion of part-time belt users and nonusers said that they would be more likely to buckle up in response to auditory and haptic reminders than visual reminders. More than two thirds of part-time belt users and at least one third of nonusers said that they would be more likely to buckle up in response to belt reminders that become more intense or continue indefinitely; these reminders would be acceptable to about half of part-time belt users and around one fifth of nonusers. Conclusions: The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) law allows the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to strengthen minimum requirements for belt reminders or allow the use of interlocks to meet federal safety standards. Even though most people always buckle up, belt interlocks are supported by only about half of full-time belt users and by fewer part-time belt users and nonusers. Enhanced reminder systems are more acceptable than belt interlocks and are viewed as almost as effective as interlocks if persistent enough. Supplemental materials are available for this article. Go to the publisher's online edition of Traffic Injury Prevention to view the supplemental file.

Using naturalistic driving data to identify variables associated with infrequent, occasional, and consistent seat belt use

Seat belt use is one of the most effective countermeasures to reduce traffic fatalities and injuries. The success of efforts to increase use is measured by road side observations and self-report questionnaires. These methods have shortcomings, with the former requiring a binary point estimate and the latter being subjective. The 100-car naturalistic driving study presented a unique opportunity to study seat belt use in that seat belt status was known for every trip each driver made during a 12-month period. Drivers were grouped into infrequent, occasional, or consistent seat belt users based on the frequency of belt use. Analyses were then completed to assess if these groups differed on several measures including personality, demographics, self-reported driving style variables as well as measures from the 100-car study instrumentation suite (average trip speed, trips per day). In addition, detailed analyses of the occasional belt user group were completed to identify factors that were predictive of occasional belt users wearing their belts. The analyses indicated that consistent seat belt users took fewer trips per day, and that increased average trip speed was associated with increased belt use among occasional belt users. The results of this project may help focus messaging efforts to convert occasional and inconsistent seat belt users to consistent users.

Understanding Seat‐Belt Intentions and Behavior: A Decision‐Making Approach1

In an experimental study designed to investigate a decision‐making model of seat‐belt use, 227 employees of an agrochemical company participated in a health information program in which they watched either a videotape on seat belts or a control videotape and completed questionnaires immediately afterward and at 3 months and 1 year after exposure. In terms of total effects, the seat‐belt videotape influenced beliefs, fear, and intentions assessed immediately after exposure, but had no effect on self‐reported frequency of belt use at 3 months or 1 year. A full path analysis indicated some support for the decision‐making model. In particular, probability difference (the perceived reduction in risk of death or serious injury due to wearing a belt) had a large influence on intentions to wear a belt and partly mediated the effect of the videotape on intentions. Reported frequency of belt use at 3 months was influenced both by post‐test intentions and by initial frequency of belt use. Similarly, belt use at 1 year was affected by belt use at 3 months and by initial belt use. The findings are discussed in terms of the role of subjective probabilities and habitual factors in seat‐belt use.