Jul J. 1995

"trend in ... usage is encouraging." Bullhere's aproblem - the goals aren't being met. There are models

for achieving high rales of salety belt use on U.s. roads, butwith a lew exceptions they're not being followed. In 1992, a

year after NHTSA launched its ~70 Percent by 1992" cam­paign, 62 percent of front-seat occupants were buckling up. Ac­

cording to one 01 the agency's methods 01 estimating belt use,this increased to 66 percent in 1993 and to 67 percent today, Yet

we're still short of the 1992 goaL We're far short of the goal for 1997 andlagging even further behind belt use rates in other countries, Besides, the67 percent estimate itself may be optimistic. The true rale may be closer to

60 percent, or even lower, depending on the source of the estimates,~Belt use in the United States seems 10 be stalled in the 60 percentrange, far lower than, for example, Canada,· says Institute SeniorVice President Allan Williams,

Dirrerent Surveys, Different Results: National estimates of beltuse rates used to come from a NHTSA survey conducted in 19 U.S.

cities, But this survey was discontinued a lew years ago. Since 1991. the

HICJ-l\\AYWFTY

I'SURANCE1'-STlfU n

FOR

Seventy percent of motorists on U.S.roads would be using their lap/shouldersafely belts. Thai was the goal set for1992 by the U.s. Department of Trans­portation's National Highway TrafficSafety Administration (Nl-ITSA).The buckle-up goal lor 1997is 75 percent. NHTSA hasset goals like these overthe years and even re­porled that the

Safety Belt Use Rates:

How Are We Doin ~Not Very Well

Vol. 30. No.6

However, improper use 01 child restraintsremains a major problem.

Aseparate report from the U.s. Depart­ment of Health and Human Services' Na­tional Health Interview Survey indicatesuneven child restraint use rates. Use is low­est among Native American children andnext-to-lowest among black and Hispanicchildren. In these groups, 36-48 percent ofrespondents said their children -rarely ornever- use belts or other child restraints.

Half of the children of parents with lessthan a high school education rarely ornever use restraints. This compares with17 percent among children of parents withcollege degrees.

9 of 10 Canadians Buckle Up: Whilebelt use creeps up very slowly in the Unit­ed States, it continues to climb in Canadawhere there's a national goal of 95 percentuse by 1995. Ninety-two percent of car driv­ers were already buckling up in October1994, up from 88 percent in 1993, accord-

iog to Transport Canada. Eight of 12 prov­inces achieved belt use higher than 90 per­cent last year.

Belt use in passenger vehicles otherthan cars was also far better than in theUnited States. Ninety percent of passengervan drivers and 81 percent of light truckdrivers in Canada buckled up in 1994.

Canadian officials attribute their suc­cess to continuing efforts in the areas of~safety promotion and enforcement." Fail­ure to buckle up carries fines ranging from$25 to $1,000, and seven provinces add de­merits to violators' driving records.

Ontario officials began adding two de­merit points for belt violations in January1994. According 10 this province's most re­cent survey, Ihe use rate rose from 84 to91 percent in a year.

-Observed Safety Belt Use in 1994~

(Feb. 1995) and ~National Occupant Pro­tection Use Surveys" (May 1995) are pub­lished in NHTSA Research Notes.

•

•

199794

U.S. Goal. 1997 ---''IIr

92908886841982

20

so

100

40

agency has been combining results ofstate-conducted surveys to arrive at esti­mates of national belt use, e\'en though ithas known that some state surveys pnrduce inflated rales. (See Status Report, Vol.28. No.6. May 15.1993). NHTSA has workedwith states to refine their survey methods,some of which were flawed.

The best estimate of belt use in theUnited States now comes from HTSA'sNational Occupant Protection Use Survey,based on a probability sample designed torepresent belt use nationwide. Accordingto this survey, conducted lor the first timein 1994, belt use was 63 percent in passen­ger cars but only 50 percent in vans, pick­ups, and utility vehicles. The overall_userate in passenger vehicles was 58 percent.

Demographies: Besides observingshoulder belt u;e in moving trJffic,-.NHTSAcollected demographic inlor·mation at2.500 randomly selected intersections. Re­searchers found more' women than menbuckled up - 64 percent compared with54 percent The gender gap was even widerwhen the use rate in vans, pickups, andutility vehides was broken out separately-61 percent of women were belted com­pared with 46 percent of men. Youngadults 16-24 years old had lower use ratesthan both older and younger people. Fifty­three percent of 16-24 year-olds buckled upcompared with 59 percent of people olderthan 24 and 58 percent of people 5 to 15.

NHTSA also collected information onSaffty belt use in rear seals, shoulder beltmisuse, and lap belt use al 140 shoppingcenters in 50 geographic areas. Only 38percent of passengers in right and left rearseats were belted. Eight percent in frontseats and 10 percent in rear seats were us­ing theIr shoulder belts incorrectly - un­der the arm, behind the back, or beltedtoo loosely.

Child Restraint Use: According to thesame survey, 88 percent 01 infants young­er than one year were restrained in safetyseats. Among children Irom one to louryears old, 61 percent were either usingregular safely belts or were in child seats.

2 Status Rep,,", Vol. 30, No.6. July J. 1995

£

8ehOver ell En~ au ar'IVi1nda biIlMef?

Sju av tiolinkopings_bilisteranvanderbi/baltet i stan

-Vi 'etar efterde andra tre!

-_.-.. ...-~

"".'/"11"

-'--_.........---

Interesting TurnaroulId: Most serious efforts I() increase belt use in the UnitltdStoles hMe used concepts and ideas from other counrries where high lL.4' roteshave been achieved and maintained. One approach that has been successful in­volves rrell-publkized en/vrcement ofsafety belt laws. This approach has IJX)fkedIn NOIth Carolina, u:hich indicates that u.s. Jurisdictians COR succeed In raising belluse by adopting Olher countnes' Ideas. (See Stows Report, \.bl29, No. 12, fu ~1994.) In this context, It's Interesting to note loot U.S programs occaslonclty pro­!:ide fresh Ideas for countnes from which u:e OOllf been learning A recent cam­paign to increase bell use in Su:eden adopted a publicity message from the ,\archCarolina program. Both posters (abo~'e) show oIr;cials indicating tool polICe arelookIng lor the minonty of motonS/.S 1£110 aren't buckling up. u:ith the in/em 01 tick·eting lhem. Su:edish affkials acknowledge the difficulty 01 ~increasing the numberof drivers buckling up !Ch~n you already oow" Su:eden's high compliaoce roles!Chile. in the United Slates, we're still searching for lhose high use rates.

What To Do?

·More states need primary belt use laws,~ In­stitute Senior Vice President Allan Williamspoints oul. '"They allow police to slop motoristsfor belt violations alone, and we need themalong with well-publicized enforcement pro­grams if we're ever going to achieve the high userates characteristic of other countries.~

Williams noles thai enactment of California'sprimary belt law led to a 20 point increase inbell use. (See Status Report, Vol. 30, No.4. May6, 1995). The result of increased publicity andenforcement of North Carolina's primary lawhas been recently demonstrated. (See SlatusRepon, Vol. 29. No. 12. Oct. 29, 1994).

Relying in part on the Institute's work inNorth Carolina, the National TransportationSafety Board last month re<:ommended primarylaws that include both ~adequate line levels andthe imposition of driver license penalty points."Only 10 states now have primary belt laws: Cali­fornia, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, New Mexico,New York, North CaroJ[na, Oregon, Texas ­plus Louisiana, where the governor signed thestate's new IHimary law last week.

Anew publication from the National HighwayTraffic Safety Administration backs up whatWilliams and others are saying: ~Enactment of aprimary enforcement law enhances the per­ceived importance of the law by both the publicand the police, which ultimately leads to greatercompliance with the law, Primary enforcementis considered by most safety experts to be oneof the most important objectives for states toconsider to achieve higher usage rates."

Law enforcement officials ~consistent1y pre­fer primary enforcement laws and report that asecondary enforcement law is a major deterrentto issuing more cilations.~ the same federalpublication indicates. A 1991 survey of 3,000people in 10 U.s. cities showed strong support,too - 73 percent said they would support statelaws allowing police to ticket motorists for beltviolations alone.

Start with Laws that AllowPolice to Ticket MotoristsFor Belt Violations Alone

•

•

Minimum Ageto Obtain lIcensellearner's Permit

._~ ....-

-

,it-.

THf '''Tl_,TAT( IiY5TlM11:.' ..., ..~ '~.-' ".-'''''' !5l---..t;l ....w ...- l;i -....w.........."-,, .

,~."._ _M_.... ,..

-\1 .,-\~' It

II '\

..,:.'~QIJ£9£G

~)~

~\ "'..... , '. ..•• _ .:J

~. '",...,...... .. r..·.. ··',....

- '--- --. .. •._, ""!

,\ ..........,

;

.-

J .. - [tr '_

....-

licensing Rules Vary WidelyBecause getting a fuJI-privilege driver's license in the

United S'tates is such a relatively simple process lormost teenagers, the time afledgling driver spends in thebeginning stage - that is, before getting a full license ­is especially important.

Teenagers in most states may obtain licenses that al·low unrestricted driving at an age that's typically a yearor two younger than in most other countries. Twenty­one U.S. states do not require a driver to obtain a learn­er's permit before applying for a lull license, And only13 states require learners who do get permits to holdthem for a minimum period ranging lrom 10 to 90 days.Two states - Connecticut and New Hampshire - haveno provisions for issuing formal learner's permits. In­stead, they specify the ages and conditions under whlcbpeople wtthout licenses may practice behind the wheel.

The period a learner's permit is valid before it ex·pires is critical because it influences how soonteenagers apply for their driver's licenses, In five juris­dictions, the time before a permit expires is threemonths or less. But in 27 s.tates, learner's permits arevalid for a year or more. This is a plus because shortpermit terms encourage quick and early licensure.

Permit expiration periods range from 60 days inArkansas and Delaware 10 4 years in Alabama, loui­siana, and Oklahoma, and 6years in florida.

All slales prohibit unsupervised driving before licen­sure, but reqUirements vary when it comes to who'sallowed to supervise. Laws generally specify driversolder than the learner, but six jurisdictions allow anylicensed driver - even a 16 year-old - to supervise alearner, The six jurisdictions are Ariwna. the District ofColumbia, Hawaii, Kentucky, New Mexico, and Ohio.

Graduate<llicensing systems are one way to ensurethat teenagers get early driving experience in low.flsksettings. Such systems have two stages befo~ unrestrict­ed driving is allowed. The !irst is a supervised learningstage during whidi restrictions apply including a mini·mum period a permit must be held. Then there's a stageof restricted licensure that. among other things, qualifieswhen and with whom teenagers may drive. (See StatusRep,,", Vol. 29. No, 4, March 19, 199.) No US. stale has afull-fledged graduated licensing system, but some statesare considering such a move.

Fora copy of ~Currenl Requirements for Getting aDriver's License in the United States· by A.F. Williams etal.. write: Publications. Insurance Institute for HighwaySalely, 1005 N, Glebe Rd" Arlington, VA 22201.

rI

\1

Term ofLeamer's Permit:

Mlnlmum/Elpil8S Alter

nona{4 yrs.none/2 Vrs.

none/12 mo.3D daVs{60 days30 days(!2 mo.90 daysJ8 mo.

nonelnonenonel6D daysnona/3 mo.none{6 VIS.

nona(12 mo.nonef90 daysnone/180 days

none/1 yr.60 daysArnlil16 Vfl., 3 mo.

none/2 yrs.none/1 yr.

30da~ mo.nonal4 VIS.

go davs(18 mo.14 dayS/180 days

nonel1 yr.30 dayS/t2 mo.

nonen V'.30 days(! yr.noneJ6 mo.none/6 mo.nonel12 mo.nonelS mo.nonulnone

noneluntll11 yrs" 3 mo.nonel6 mo.none/3 Vfl.

nonenS mo.90 days/1 yr.noneJ6 mo.nonel4 yrs.none/1S mo.

none/120 daysnonenSO days15 daysl6 mo.nonenSO days3 mo.n yr.none 11 VI.

none190 daysnone /2 yrs.

nonellndellnilenonal1 yr.

noneluntil16 vrs .. 2mo.none /6 mo.10 davsn yl.

nonono

yes

".yes

nonoyesnonoyesnoyesyesyesnoyesnoyesyesyesyesyesyesnononononoyesyesyesnoyesyesnonoyesyesyesnonoyesyesyesyesyesyesyesno

Learner's PermitRequired Before

license?

4.

1611516/14

16/15 vrs., 7mo.

1611'16115

16/15 vrs., 3 mo.16/16

16/15 VIS., 10 mo.16(1616(1516(1515/151511516/15

16 vrs" 1 mo./1516/1416/1416/1615/1516/15

16f15 VfI" 9 mo.16 VfI., 6 mO./16

161151611516115

16(15 vrs., 6 mo.15(14 vrs., 6 mo.

16(1516(15 VfI., 6 mo.16(15 yfl., 6 mo.

11/1615(1516/1616115

1611'16116

16/15 yrs., 6 mo.16/1516/1616/1615(1514/141611516/15

16/15YfI.,9mo.16/1516/1516/1516/15

16(15 yrs" 6 mo.16/15

•

AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCali/orniaColoradoConnecticulDelawareDistrlcl at ColumbiaFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKeatuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippi (911/95)MissouriMonlanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JersavNew Mexico~ew Yort:North' CarolinaNorth DakolaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsvlvanlaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTeancsstll (1/1196)TnasUt••VermonlVif\llnlaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWvomlng

-.'-.::x='­-.... 1O~~'

....* 1~":'~,1c,~. "".""M '

,- "~3~" [!ii-, '" I k

---·"·7~

.-

ITS RevWted:Greyhound Pulls PhqfOn Crash AvoidanceDevices in BusesDrivers Ignored Signals fromITS Systems but Government StIIISbowcllBeS the Warning Devlces

Greyhound Lines has stopped using the radar-eQuipped collision avoidance warningsystems it installed more than two years ago 0111,500 buses.

floyd Holland, senior vice president for operations at Greyhound, says the company de­cided early this year to stop using VORAD (Vehicle On-board Radar) and is in the process01 removing the equipment lrom its buses. He explains that ~rather than spend a milliondollars to upgrade [it] and then spend $I million more every year on maintenance, we feltlike we ought to take the money and try to come up with atwo-way communication systemon our buses.~

VORAD is an example of Intelligent Transportation Systems OTS) technology that's be­ing touted in some circles as the answer to motor vehicle crash problems. The Institutepreviously expressed skepticism about whether such systems can live up to their promise.(See Status Reparl, Vol. 29, No, 8, July 30, 1994.)

Media fanfare heralded Greyhound's announcement three years ago that it would spend$5 million to equip its fleet with VORAD systems designed to help prevent crashes byalert­ing drivers to obstacles ahead. The U.S. Senetary of Transportation joined Greyhound and

VORAD in a 1992 press conference to an­nounce the venture, which marked theVORAD company's first commercial con­tract. At that time, bus company execu­tives predicted the [TS devices would cutthe bus line's crash rate by 25 percent.Greyhound did report a 21 percent de­crease in crashes in 1993, compared with1992, but Holland says he doesn't knowthe extent to which the reduction can beattributed to VORAD.

Evaluating VORAD's effectiveness iscomplicated because, when Greyhoundbegan installing the systems in 1992, ithad just settled a two-year strike duringwhich many novice drivers were hired andcrash rates were unusually high. Whenveteran drivers returned to work alter thestrike, the fleet's crash rate went down.~Drivers will tell you it's because of experi­enced people, not VORAD," Holland says.

Greyhound drivers interviewed in theWashington, D.C. area told StQtus Reportthat VORAD systems were unpopular be­cause they gave drivers false warningsignals whenever a bus came near policeradar or electronic highway signs. The sig­nals activated so often that drivers saythey tended to ignore the warnings. And,because VORAD uses radar to detect ob­jects, it often sets off radar detectors incars traveling near the buses.

"VORAD would set off their radar de­tectors, so they'd pull in front of the busesand put their brakes on," Holland says,lorcing the bus drivers to brake.

Although Greyhound has ended its ex­periment with VORAD, the bus line's useof the systems is leatured in a new Smith­sonian Institution exhibit as an example ofITS at work in the United States. Filmfootage of Greyhound buses operatingwith VORAD is part of "Moving Transpor­tation Into the Information Age," whichopened in May at the Smithsonian's Muse­um of American History. This interactive­multimedia exhibit was created andfinanced by the U.S. Department of Trans­portation together with the IntelligentTransportation Society of America.

Status Report, IbI.3O, No.6, July r 1995 i

High Courts Reject the Double JeopardyDefense in Cases of Alcohol-Impaired Driving

Administrative license suspension laws,which allow police to confiscate the licens­es of alcohol-impaired drivers, are in effectin 39 slates and the District of Columbia.They're proven eUective, but there's anewwrinkle that's getting lots of media atten­tion - the laws have been challenged incourts in at least adozen states on groundsthey constitute double jeopardy.

High courts in at least three stales re­cently ruled that the double-jeopardy de­fense doesn't apply. These are importantrulings for the interests of highway safetybecause administrative license suspen·sion laws allow states to quickly removeimpaired drivers from the road. Typically,they authorize police to confiscate thelicenses of drivers who either fail or re­fuse to take achemical test for alcohol.

Defense attorneys representing clientswhose licenses were suspended for driv­ing while intoxicated have argued at thetrial level- some successfully - that au­tomatic license suspension is punishmentfor the oHense. Any further criminal prose­cution would amount to double jeopardyand would therefore violate the FifthAmendment. they argue. Defense attor­neys cite the U.S. Supreme Court's 1994ruling in Montana v. Kurth Ranch, accord­ing to which a state tax on possession andstorage of illegal drugs can amount 10 pun­ishment and constitute double jeopardyfor those convicted of drug charges. Be­fore this ruling, numerous courts had heldthat administrative license suspensiondoesn't raise double jeopardy issues.

The Institute prepared and widely dis­tributed to prosecutors a model responsethat argues administrative license suspen­sion doesn't constitute double jeopardybecause the purpose of such laws is pro­tective, not punitive.

The highest courts in three states haverejected double jeopardy challenges based

on the Kurth Ranch case. and no interme­diate appeals court has found for the de­fendant on this issue:

• Hawaii's Supreme Court held inHawaii v. Higa on May 17, 1995 that ad­ministrative license suspension "proceed­ings serve legitimate, nonpunitive, andpurely remedial functions, and thereforethe administrative license revocation pro­ceeding ... did not bar jthe defendant's]subsequent criminal prosecution on thegrounds of double jeopardy principles."

• The Maine Supreme Court concludedin Maine v. Savard on June 6, 1995 that anypunitive or deterrent purpose served byadministrative license suspension "ismerely incidental to the overriding pur­pose intended by tile legislature to pro­vide the public with safe roadways.~

• On June 14, 199i, the New MexicoSupreme Court reinstated criminal chargesagainst 12 defendants in alcohol-impaireddriving cases Charges had been dismissedon double jeopardy grounds. Tile stale'shigh court issued its rule without commentbut is expected to state its reasons later.

Institute research conducted duringthe 19805 shows that administrative licensesuspension laws effedively reduce driverfatalities at night when alcohol is mostlikely to be involved. (See Status Repor/.Vol. 23. No.3 March 1.4. 1.988.)

The National Highway Traffic SafetyAdministration reports that the median ef·fect of such laws either alone or in combi­nation with other laws in I i stales is a 6percent decrease in crashes thaI are likelyto be alcohol-related.

Vol. 30, No.6, July I, 1995

In This IssueBelt use in United States isn't keepingup wIth official goals or with use ratesachieved in Canadian provinces .......p.l

Stronger sarety belt laws would helpachieve higher use rates p.3

Laws governing licensing ages differWidely among states p.4

Intelllgent transportation systems re­visited: Greyhound drops VORAD evenas government still touts it p.6

Double jeopardy gets lots of attentionbut isn't real threat to administrative li-cense suspension laws p.7

STATUS'~; REPORT1005 North Glebe RlliIdArlington, VA 222Q](703) 247·1500 fAX (703) 247-1678

Director of Publicahons{f.ditor: Anne FlemingWnlers: ,\u,ria Kaufmann. Kim lancUI~r.

;wi SIluon J. RasmllSSellf.diIOli.ll Asslsl~t Carlene HughesArt DIrector .Joyce Thompsonf.-apIIic Delgner Leslie 0Uty

The ioUI'm« bulllute lor Highway Safety is III Indepm­MIll.,~, Kielllilic mil eduatioNl otpIUUtion. ItIs dedlatfd to~ lbe losses - deloths. injuries. milproptrty~ - resulting lroII Cf1If>beI 00 !be Nlion'$

higtlWll)'5. Tbt btdute Is supporIfd by 1M An'IMcan In.$WllIICt }Ighny5*ty A5sociilJoo, the American WurmHicf'nqy 5alfty AIIIIntt, tile '\aIJOn.ll.woNtKlll olinde­pendellln$uren Slidy As.socN.tion. ar.od I number 01 indioI'idUII in5tIrInl:t~

Coot~1J 1liiy be republisllffi Ifl1loIe, or III pM!, with IltrilJu.ltOrl. K)W Ire /lOt now retth-ing S'o1l:s Report but woukIlike to. cootaetlhe Cornml.lllialions Oepmment.

ISSN 001B-988X