Seat Belt Reminder Research Articles

Increasing seat belt use in the United States by promoting and requiring more effective seat belt reminder systems

Objective Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 208 requires every passenger vehicle to provide an auditory signal lasting 4 to 8 seconds and a visual display lasting 60 seconds when the driver is unbelted at ignition. This requirement does not increase seat belt use. This paper summarizes the latest research on using vehicle technology to increase seat belt use and existing safety standards worldwide to support the strengthening of FMVSS 208. Method Studies of seat belt reminders and interlocks published in peer-reviewed journals, conference proceedings, or as technical reports were identified in online databases and reviewed along with current requirements worldwide. Results from past research were used to estimate the front- and rear-seat daytime belt use rate and the annual number of lives that could be saved by a persistent audible reminder at each seating position. Results Most motor vehicle occupants routinely buckle up. Those that do not typically forget, are going a short distance, or find belts uncomfortable. Seat belt reminders can remind or motivate occupants to buckle up. Enhanced reminders that exceed FMVSS 208 increase belt use by 6 percentage points. Reminders also can increase rear belt use, and although required throughout the world, are not required by FMVSS 208. More persistent reminders, like those required around the world, with a continuous, long-lasting audible signal increase belt use by 30% among drivers who do not routinely buckle up. If every vehicle in the U.S. had such a reminder at each seating position, then it was estimated that the daytime belt use rate in the U.S. would increase about 3 percentage points from 90.3% to 93.2% in the front row and by about 6 percentage points from 80% to 85.9% in the rear row. It was estimated that the increase in belt use from a continuous, long-lasting audible reminder could potentially save about 1,600 lives each year. Seat belt interlocks can increase belt use, but acceptance is a stumbling block. Public outcry ensued after interlocks were required in 1973, and public sentiment remains negative. Opinions toward front and rear reminders are more favorable. Furthermore, past research suggests interlocks may be no more effective for increasing seat belt use than persistent audible reminders. The effect of interlocks on rear belt use have not been explored. Conclusion Persistent seat belt reminder systems that last at least 90 seconds can potentially save hundreds of U.S. motorists each year. Robust empirical evidence, successful exemplars from organizations throughout the world, and a clear public health benefit exists for strengthening FMVSS 208 to require more persistent audible reminders at every seating position.

Teen driver crashes potentially preventable by crash avoidance features and teen-driver-specific safety technologies

Introduction: Vehicle technologies have the potential to help address the disproportionate crash risk that teen drivers face. While crash avoidance features benefit the general population, several address crash scenarios for which teen drivers are particularly at risk, such as rear-end and lane-drift crashes. Other emerging technologies have been designed for teen drivers by addressing certain crash or injury risk factors associated with risky driving behavior, such as speeding or not wearing a seat belt. Methods: Using nationwide U.S. crash data from 2016 to 2019, this study examined the maximum potential safety benefits of three currently available crash avoidance features (front crash prevention, lane departure prevention, and blind spot monitoring) and three teen-driver-specific technologies (speeding prevention, extended seatbelt reminders and interlocks, and nighttime curfew violation alerts). Results: Teen-driver-specific features have the largest potential for reducing teen driver injuries and fatalities, followed by lane departure prevention, front crash prevention, and blind spot monitoring; however, altogether these technologies have the potential to prevent 78% of teen driver fatalities, 47% of injured teen drivers, and 41% of crashes involving teen drivers. Conclusions: Crash avoidance features and teen-driver-specific vehicle technologies appear to address different risk factors and crash scenarios, which emphasizes the importance of utilizing both types of safety features to reduce the crash risk of teen drivers. Practical applications: Wider acceptance, accessibility, and use of these technologies are needed for their safety potential to be realized. More manufacturers should offer and advertise teen-driver-specific technology suites that integrate crash avoidance systems and safety features that address risky driving behavior. While this study shows the maximum potential safety benefits of these technologies, further research is needed to understand the behavioral implications as teens learn to drive with these features.

Quantifying and recommending seat belt reminder timing using naturalistic driving video data

Introduction: To better understand the timing of when people buckle their seat belt, an analysis of a naturalistic driving study was used. The study provided a unique perspective inside of the vehicle where the entire seat belt was visible from the time the driver entered the vehicle to one minute of driving forward or 32 kph. Method: Seat belt buckling behavior was identified for 30 drivers. An additional 10 drives for 13 of these drivers were identified for a seat belt sequencing, which identified the points when the vehicle was put into ignition, shifted, when vehicle movement began, and when the seat belt was buckled. The speed at belt closure was also identified. The timing from ignition to buckle and to shifting into forward gear were examined to identify the speed and appropriate timing for seat belt reminders. Results: The data show that drivers were buckled in over 92% of the 3,102 drives. In addition, in 70% of those total drives, the drivers were buckled before the vehicle began movement. Of greater interest for seat belt reminders/interlocks are those drives when drivers buckle after movement. When considering time from ignition to seat belt closure, the mean was 27.5 s. Because higher speeds are typically reached when traveling forward rather than reverse, it was important to know the time duration from shifting into drive to buckling. With this consideration, the mean to buckle dropped to 16.2 s. The mean speed at buckling when traveling forward was 15.3 kph. From the regression analysis, the input variables ‘Age,’ ‘Sex,’ ‘Weight,’ ‘Environment,’ and ‘Weather’ are significant contributors in predicting the log odds of a driver putting on seatbelt. Conclusions: With the understanding that higher speeds lead to an increased risk of injury and/or death and with the results of the analysis, a recommendation of a 30 s time from forward shift and a 25 kph (6.9 m/s) threshold for reminder systems should be implemented. The regression analysis also validates that most of the predicted seat belt buckling times are within 30 s. Practical Applications: This would reduce perception of nuisance alerts and protect the driver from higher speed unbuckled crashes. The seat belt buckling time prediction model also demonstrates good potential for developing tailored buckling warning system for different drivers.

ANALYSIS OF DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN EXPERIENCE OF THE ORGANIZATION OF ROAD SAFETY

The experience of traffic safety in the USA and European countries is studied, as well as a comparative analysis of road accidents in Ukraine, taking into account building codes in this area, analyzed foreign experience and prerequisites for the formation and implementation of road safety.
 Vision Zero (Zero Mortality) is a Swedish program to increase road safety and reduce road deaths. The basic principle of the program is the inadmissibility of fatal traffic accidents. The main tools of the program:
 Crossroads with circular traffic. Despite the fact that traffic light regulation reduces the number of accidents and increases the capacity of the intersection; roads with a dividing barrier. The solution effectively prevents accidents related to collisions of oncoming vehicles. Construction of dividing barriers has been active in Sweden since 1998; speed limit in settlements up to 30 km / h. Cleaning of areas adjacent to roads. To minimize the consequences of the congress of transport from the road from the surrounding areas were removed dangerous objects: stones and trees, fences. Detailed investigation of fatal accidents. All fatal road accidents are investigated by a special commission. Seat belt reminder. Alcolocks. The technology is designed to reduce the number of cases of drunk driving. Photo radars. Means of control over the established speed limits on roads. Bicycle helmets. All children under the age of 15 are required to wear a helmet when cycling.

Buckle Up! A Nudge for Car Occupant Safety

The seatbelt remains one of the most effective solutions in reducing vehicle occupants' injuries in road crashes. Nevertheless, achieving a high compliance rate in Malaysia, where the situation of not buckling up is glaringly evident among rear passengers, still poses a great challenge. On another note, despite manufacturers' countermeasure to introduce the Seatbelt Reminder (SBR) system, some users still find ways to flout the system by using fake clips.

A statistical analysis of the correlates of compliance and defiance of seatbelt use

With the intent to frame policy recommendations for enhancing the state of road safety, this study employed a binary logit regression approach to examine the factors associated with the compliance/defiance of seatbelt use among drivers of different vehicle types in Islamabad. To this end, a questionnaire survey was conducted to collect data on the respondents’ seatbelt use, demographic characteristics, driving behavior, past penalization history, and perceived effectiveness of enforcement of seatbelt laws. The study results revealed that there is a lower likelihood of wearing seatbelt among male drivers, taxi drivers, drivers with a low level of education, drivers with no crash or injury history, drivers that violate speed limits and are never penalized on seatbelt violation, and drivers with no seatbelt reminder installed in their vehicles. Respondents who believed that there is low effectiveness of the enforcement of seatbelt laws had the highest impact on seatbelt use whereas, the presence of seatbelt reminders in the vehicle had the least impact on seatbelt use. The findings of this study suggest the need for awareness campaigns for taxi drivers with the intent to educate them about the potential benefits of using a seatbelt in the case of a crash event; improved awareness and strict vigilance of male drivers; strict enforcement of posted speed limits and seatbelt laws; legislation for the mandatory installation of a seatbelt in all the new vehicles, and organizing mass outreach campaigns to improve the overall safety environment. Most importantly and widely applicable to the developing world, this study necessitates a depiction of strong resolve on the part of government agencies regarding the strict enforcement of seatbelt laws. Given a substantial difference in the social, cultural, and legislative outfit of the developed and developing worlds, factors influencing the compliance/defiance of seatbelt use among drivers differ significantly. It is, therefore, important to explore the local contributory factors as the results are not necessarily transferable across the regions.

The effects of persistent audible seat belt reminders and a speed-limiting interlock on the seat belt use of drivers who do not always use a seat belt

Introduction: Vehicle technologies that increase seat belt use can save thousands of lives each year. Kidd, Singer, Huey, and Kerfoot (2018) found that a gearshift interlock was more effective for increasing seat belt use than an intermittent audible reminder, but interlocks may not be more effective than persistent audible reminders lasting at least 90 seconds. Method: Forty-nine part-time belt users with a recent seat belt citation who self-reported not always using a seat belt drove two vehicles for 1 week each. Thirty-three drove a Chevrolet with an intermittent audible reminder followed by either a BMW with a persistent 90-second audible reminder (n = 17) or a Subaru with an incessant audible reminder (n = 16). The other 16 participants experienced the BMW persistent reminder followed by an interlock that limited speed to 15 mph during unbelted driving. These data were combined with data from 32 part-time belt users in Kidd et al. (2018) who experienced the intermittent reminder for 2 weeks or the intermittent reminder for 1 week and a gearshift interlock the next. Results: Relative to the intermittent reminder, seat belt use was significantly increased an estimated 30% by the BMW persistent reminder, 34% by the Subaru incessant reminder, and 33% by the speed-limiting interlock. Belt use was increased an estimated 16% by the gearshift interlock, but this change was not significant. More participants circumvented the speed-limiting interlock to drive unbelted than the audible reminders. Responses to a poststudy survey indicated that interlocks were less acceptable than reminders. Conclusions: Audible reminders lasting at least 90 seconds and a speed-limiting interlock were more effective for increasing seat belt use than an intermittent audible reminder, but reminders were found more acceptable. Practical applications: Strengthening existing U.S. safety standards to require audible reminders lasting at least 90 seconds for front-row occupants could save up to 1,489 lives annually.

The effectiveness of centerline rumble strips (CLRS) on two-lane carriageways in Sweden on injury accident risk for cars equipped with electronic stability control (ESC) and cars without ESC

Objective: Electronic Stability Control (ESC) and Lane Departure Warning (LDW) are in-vehicle safety systems that complement each other. While the implementation of on-board lane support systems in traffic is still limited and the majority of the traffic volume is made up by ESC-equipped cars, the effectiveness of centerline rumble strips (CLRS) for ESC-equipped cars need to be quantified. The aim of the present study is to estimate the effectiveness of CLRS on two-lane carriageways in Sweden, on injury accident risk for cars equipped with ESC and cars without ESC.Methods: Police reported injury crashes during 2011‒2016 were extracted from the Swedish Traffic Accident Data Acquisition (STRADA) database and merged with the National Road Database (NVDB) containing information regarding road design and road use parameters. The analysis includes crashes on two-lane carriageways in Sweden with a width of at least seven meters in dry and wet road conditions, that is, road surface not covered by ice or snow. The crashes involved a total of 7,490 cars with injured drivers, where 39% of the cars were equipped with ESC.The effectiveness estimates were calculated for injured drivers in ESC-equipped cars in crashes involving drift out of lane to the left, and posted speed limits of 80 and 90 km/h. The analysis was carried out by applying the induced exposure approach in which rates of cars involved in crashes sensitive and non-sensitive to CLRS were compared at sites with and without CLRS. In order to substantiate the evidence for causality, case and control rates of car model year and Seat Belt Reminder (SBR) fitment, driver age, driver gender, traffic volume, road width, speed limit and road surface condition were compared.Results: For ESC-equipped cars, the analysis showed a reduction in CLRS-sensitive crashes by 40% (19‒56%, confidence interval [CI] 95%) where CLRS had been implemented, and a reduction by 29% (11‒44%, CI 95%) for cars without ESC-equipment.Conclusions: Contemporary effectiveness estimates may have important implications for the short and medium-term national road safety management. CLRS remains an important countermeasure to consider for reducing the number of real-world injury crashes. From a systematic safety perspective, it is important to accentuate that CLRS and ESC essentially address different crash scenarios. Still, both CLRS and ESC have the potential to avoid crashes involving unintentional lane drifting resulting in loss of control. When the CLRS alerts a driver of unintentional lane drifting, the ESC can be essential in supporting the driver to safely veer back into the lane without loss of control. However, further analysis on the combined safety benefit of ESC and CLRS is required.

Exploring Ghanaian commercial drivers’ intentions to wear a seat belt

Wearing a seat belt reduces a person’s risk of serious injury and death during a road traffic crash. Ghana has mandatory seat belt laws. Despite this, only a few commercial drivers wear a seat belt. This study aimed to gain an understanding of the factors associated with the intention to wear a seat belt in a sample of commercial drivers in the Greater Accra Region of Ghana. Drivers of passenger-carrying minibuses (N = 303) completed an interviewer-administered questionnaire based on the theory of planned behaviour. Structural equation modelling (SEM) showed that attitudinal beliefs about seat belt use were positively associated with the intention to wear a seat belt. Normative beliefs and perceived control beliefs were not associated with the intention to wear a seat belt. The results demonstrate that commercial drivers in the Greater Accra Region seem to possess attitudinally-controlled intentions, such that road safety campaigns that target the antecedents of attitude formation and activation may strengthen behavioural beliefs about seat belt use intentions. Having positive attitudes towards seat belt use should be considered by the National Road Safety Commission as an important starting point for seat belt use safety interventions. For example, seat belt use interventions for commercial drivers that combine education with the use of intelligent seat belt reminders (loud sound or light displays) may strengthen positive attitudes towards seat belt use.

Consumer acceptance of enhanced seat belt reminders, a gearshift interlock, or different speed-limiting interlocks to encourage seat belt use following a brief hands-on experience

Seat belt interlock systems that restrict the use of the vehicle or a vehicle feature when an occupant is unbelted are effective for increasing seat belt use but might be unacceptable to consumers. This study collected driver opinions about whether 3 seat belt reminder systems and 3 interlock systems, two that restricted speed and one that prevented shifting into gear, would increase belt use and were acceptable. Twenty-eight volunteers, 22 who routinely did use a belt and 6 who routinely did, drove 6 vehicles with these technologies on a closed course while unbelted or completing tasks that led to unbelted driving. Participants indicated their level of agreement from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) with 5 statements after driving each vehicle. Participants reported stronger levels of agreement that each interlock system would make them buckle up more frequently than 2 of the 3 reminder systems. Agreement about finding the various technologies acceptable, requiring them in a vehicle, avoiding purchasing a vehicle with them, or circumventing them was not significantly different among technologies. When asked to circumvent each interlock system, participants most commonly sat on a buckled belt, routed the belt behind their back, or buckled and unbuckled in various manners. Most participants raised safety concerns in a post-study interview about the interlock systems, particularly those that restricted speed. Hence, although interlocks were perceived as more effective for increasing belt use and no more or less acceptable than reminders following a brief hands-on experience, interlocks created safety concerns that may impede acceptance.

The effect of a gearshift interlock on seat belt use by drivers who do not always use a belt and its acceptance among those who do

IntroductionSeat belts reduce the risk of fatal injury in a crash, yet in 2015, nearly 10,000 people killed in passenger vehicles were unrestrained. Enhanced seat belt reminders increase belt use, but a gearshift interlock that prevents the vehicle from being placed into gear unless the seat belt is used may prove more effective. MethodThirty-two people with a recent seat belt citation and who admitted to not always using a seat belt as a driver were recruited as part-time belt users and asked to evaluate two new vehicles. Sixteen drove two vehicles with an enhanced reminder for one week each, and 16 drove a vehicle with an enhanced reminder for one week and a vehicle with a gearshift interlock the following week. Sixteen full-time belt users who reported always using a seat belt drove a vehicle with a gearshift interlock for one week to evaluate acceptance. ResultsRelative to the enhanced reminder, the gearshift interlock significantly increased the likelihood that a part-time belt user used a belt during travel time in a trip by 21%, and increased the rate of belt use by 16%; this effect approached significance. Although every full-time belt user experienced the gearshift interlock, their acceptance of the technology reported in a post-study survey was fairly positive and not significantly different from part-time belt users. Six part-time belt users circumvented the gearshift interlock by sitting on a seat belt, waiting for the system to deactivate, or unbuckling during travel. ConclusionThe gearshift interlock increased the likelihood that part-time belt users buckled up and the rate of belt use during travel relative to the enhanced reminder but could be more effective if it prevented circumvention. Practical applicationsAn estimated 718–942 lives could be saved annually if the belt use of unbuckled drivers and front passengers increased 16–21%.

乗員用シートベルトリマインダー(非着用警報)のシートベルト装着率向上効果の推定 : 自動車アセスメントでの評価導入に向けて

乗員用シートベルトリマインダー(非着用警報)のシートベルト装着率向上効果の推定 : 自動車アセスメントでの評価導入に向けて

Passenger use of and attitudes toward rear seat belts

Objectives: This study sought to identify attitudes toward belt use in the rear seat and to gain insight into the experiences of rear-seat passengers. Method: A telephone survey conducted between June and August 2016 targeted adult passengers who had recently ridden in the rear and who did not always wear their seat belt when doing so. Respondents were questioned regarding their reasons for not buckling up and possible conditions under which they would be more likely to buckle up during rear-seat travel. Results: Of 1163 recent rear-seat passengers, 72% reported always using their seat belt in the rear. Full-time belt use was lower among passengers who primarily travel in the rear of hired vehicles compared with personal vehicles. The most common explanation for not buckling up was that the back seat is safer than the front. Four out of five agreed they do not buckle up because of type of trip; two-thirds forget or do not see the need; and two-thirds agreed with reasons related to design, comfort, or usability issues. Nearly 40% agreed that they sometimes do not buckle up in the rear because there is no law requiring it. Conclusion: Many reasons for not using belts in the rear are similar to reasons in the front, such as forgetfulness, inconvenience, or discomfort. One difference is that many rear-seat passengers perceive using the belt is unnecessary because the back seat is safer than the front. More than half of part-time belt users and nonusers reported interventions such as rear seat belt reminders, stronger belt-use laws, and more comfortable belts would make them more likely to use their seat belt in the rear seat. Practical applications: This study identifies barriers to rear seat belt use that point to the need for a multi-faceted approach to increase belt use.

Non-seatbelt use and associated factors among passengers

Seatbelt use is the most effective way to save lives and reduce severe injuries. However, the percentage of non-seatbelt use is still high among drivers and passengers. Although the factors related to non-seatbelt use among drivers have been widely studied, the factors associated with non-seatbelt use among passengers have not been well documented. In addition, recent surveys showed that the driver's attitude has a significant impact on the passenger's seatbelt use. However, the lower response rate and less accurate of self-reported seatbelt use in survey studies, especially among participants who had a high level perception of penalty for non-seatbelt use. Therefore, we examined the association between passenger's seatbelt use and driver's seatbelt use with a statewide injury surveillance system. 36,012 passengers who were involved in motor vehicle crashes (MVC) in 2004–2013 were included in this study. Our results showed that if a driver wore a seatbelt, 92.6% of his/her passengers also wore seatbelts while if a driver did not wear a seatbelt, only 19.1% of his/her passengers wore seatbelts. Compared to the passenger whose driver wore a seatbelt, the passenger had a significantly higher probability of non-seatbelt use (odds ratio = 46.7; 95% confidence intervals, 42.7–51.1) if his/her driver did not wear a seatbelt. The driver has the greatest influence on the passenger's seatbelt use. The findings will provide important information for future public health practices to increase seatbelt use at the highest possible rate for passengers, such as educational interventions for drivers and seatbelt reminders use.

How would increasing seat belt use affect the number of killed or seriously injured light vehicle occupants?

The expected effects of increasing seat belt use on the number of killed or seriously injured (KSI) light vehicle occupants have been estimated for three scenarios of increased seat belt use in Norway, taking into account current seat belt use, the effects of seat belts and differences in crash risk between belted and unbelted drivers. The effects of seat belts on fatality and injury risk were investigated in a meta-analysis that is based on 24 studies from 2000 or later. The results indicate that seat belts reduce both fatal and non-fatal injuries by 60% among front seat occupants and by 44% among rear seat occupants. Both results are statistically significant. Seat belt use among rear seat occupants was additionally found to about halve fatality risk among belted front seat occupants in a meta-analysis that is based on six studies. Based on an analysis of seat belt wearing rates among crash involved and non-crash involved drivers in Norway it is estimated that unbelted drivers have 8.3 times the fatal crash risk and 5.2 times the serious injury crash risk of belted drivers. The large differences in crash risk are likely to be due to other risk factors that are common among unbelted drivers such as drunk driving and speeding. Without taking into account differences in crash risk between belted and unbelted drivers, the estimated effects of increasing seat belt use are likely to be biased. When differences in crash risk are taken into account, it is estimated that the annual numbers of KSI front seat occupants in light vehicles in Norway could be reduced by 11.3% if all vehicles had seat belt reminders (assumed seat belt wearing rate 98.9%), by 17.5% if all light vehicles had seat belt interlocks (assumed seat belt wearing rate 99.7%) and by 19.9% if all front seat occupants of light vehicles were belted. Currently 96.6% of all (non-crash involved) front seat occupants are belted. The effect on KSI per percentage increase of seat belt use increases with increasing initial levels of seat belt use. Had all rear seat occupants been belted, the number of KSI front seat occupants could additionally be reduced by about 0.6%. The reduction of the number of KSI rear seat occupants would be about the same in terms of numbers of prevented KSI.

Using naturalistic driving data to examine drivers' seatbelt use behavior: Comparison between teens and adults

Teens and young drivers are often reported as one driver group that has significantly lower seatbelt use rates than other age groups. This study was designed to address the questions of whether and how seatbelt-use behavior of novice teen drivers is different from young adult drivers and other adult drivers when driving on real roads. Driving data from 148 drivers who participated in two previous naturalistic driving studies were further analyzed. The combined dataset represents 313,500 miles, 37,695 valid trips, and about 9500 h of driving. Drivers did not wear their seatbelts at all during 1284 trips. Two dependent variables were calculated, whether and when drivers used seatbelts during a trip, and analyzed using logistic regression models. Results of this study found significant differences in the likelihood of seatbelt use between novice teen drivers and each of the three adult groups. Novice teen drivers who recently received their driver's licenses were the most likely to use a seatbelt, followed by older drivers, middle-aged drivers, and young drivers. Young drivers were the least likely to use a seatbelt. Older drivers were also more likely to use seatbelts than the other two adult groups. The results also showed that novice teen drivers were more likely to fasten their seatbelts at the beginning of a trip when compared to the other three adult groups. Novice teen drivers who were still in the first year after obtaining their driver's license were the most conservative seatbelt users, when compared to adult drivers. Findings from this study have practical application insights in both developing training programs for novice teen drivers and designing seatbelt reminder and interlock systems to promote seatbelt use in certain driver groups.

Preliminary Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) for Safety Assist Technologies in ASEAN NCAP – Rationalizing the Impact to Road Safety for Malaysia’s Case

The newly established New Car Assessment Program for Southeast Asian Countries (ASEAN NCAP) has incorporated Safety Assist Technologies (SATs) in its automobile safety rating scheme. In order for any assessed car to be eligible for the maximum 5-star rating, it should first be equipped with Electronic Stability Control (ESC) and fitted with seatbelt reminder (SBR). However, since these SATs are not being evaluated in their performance by the means of field testing, this paper explains the benefit of having these SATs through Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) which help to rationalize the importance of SATs in preventing road accidents or mitigating severity of injuries. Due to data limitation, this preliminary CBA assessment will only be focusing on Malaysia’s situation and is based on published sources and the authors’ best estimates. This study also includes the Cost-Benefit Analysis on Anti-lock Braking System (ABS), which is the basis for ESC technology, in preparation for its inclusion in the future rating scheme to expedite the vision of making ABS as standard fit in all ASEAN’s passenger cars. The preliminary result shows that all technologies – ESC, SBR and ABS – appear to be cost-effective (benefit/cost-ratio > 3) or most likely cost effective (1 < benefit/cost-ratio < 3) in Malaysia’s road safety situation per se.

Why is road safety in the U.S. not on par with Sweden, the U.K., and the Netherlands? Lessons to be learned

This study compared road safety and related factors in the U.S. with those in Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands (which are among the best-performing countries), in order to identify actions most likely to produce casualty reductions in the U.S. The reviewed topics were basic country statistics, road fatalities and various fatality rates, and selected road-safety issues. The main differences concerned structural and cultural factors (such as vehicle distance driven), and procedural factors (such as alcohol-impaired driving, exceeding speed limits, and use of seat belts). The main recommendations for improving road safety in the U.S. are as follows: (1) lower states’ BAC limits, and encourage the use of alcohol ignition interlocks (2) reexamine the current speed-limit policies and improve speed enforcement, (3) implement primary seat-belt-wearing laws in each state that would cover both front and rear occupants, and reward vehicle manufacturers for installation of advanced seat-belt reminders, and (4) reconsider road-safety target setting so that the focus is on reducing fatalities and not on reducing fatality rate per distance driven, and (5) consider new strategies to reduce vehicle distance driven.

Drivers’ Attitudes Toward Front or Rear Child Passenger Belt Use and Seat Belt Reminders at These Seating Positions

Objective: Passengers, especially those in rear seating positions, use seat belts less frequently than drivers. In-vehicle technology can inform drivers when their passengers are unbuckled and encourage passengers to use belts. The current study collected information about drivers’ attitudes toward passenger belt use and belt reminders for front passengers and children in back seats. Methods: A national telephone survey of 1218 people 18 and older was conducted, of which 477 respondents were drivers who transport a front seat passenger at least once a week and 254 were drivers who transport an 8- to 15-year-old child in the back seat. Respondents were asked about their attitudes toward belt use by their front passengers or rear child passengers and preferences for different passenger belt reminder features. Results: Ninety percent of drivers who regularly transport front seat passengers said that the passengers always use seat belts. Reported belt use was even higher among 8- to 15-year-old children in the back seat (97%). Among the drivers whose children do not always buckle up, about half said their child unbuckled the belt during the trip. Almost every full-time belt use driver (96%) would encourage front passengers to buckle up if not belted, compared to 57 percent of part-time belt users and nonusers. In contrast, nearly every driver who transports children in the back seat would encourage their belt use, regardless of the driver's belt use habits. Most drivers who transport front passengers wanted passenger belt reminders to encourage passengers to buckle up. Most of these drivers wanted a chime/buzzer or warning light or text display and wanted the reminder to last indefinitely. Most drivers who transport child passengers in the rear seat wanted the vehicle to indicate whether child passengers are unbuckled. A large majority of these drivers wanted notifications via a visual diagram of seating positions and belt use, a chime/buzzer, and a warning light or text display. These drivers also wanted the vehicle to provide belt use information until the child buckled up. Conclusions: Many drivers, especially those who always use seat belts, said they would encourage unbuckled passengers to buckle up and supported auditory and visual belt reminders for passengers, particularly for children sitting in the back seat. Front and rear passenger reminders that last indefinitely would be acceptable to most drivers who transport these passengers. An auditory alert may be especially useful to alert drivers to children unbuckling in the back seat during a trip.

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.