Rural Pickup Truck Drivers and Safety Belt Use:
Focus Group Report |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Gender and Other Characteristics Laws Pertaining to Children and Cargo Areas Moderator's Guide and Topics of Discussion Focus Group Participants' Attitudes Toward Safety Measures Focus Group Participants' Safety Belt Use Focus Group Participants' Responses to Specific Reasons/Approaches Focus Group Responses to Existing Campaign Approaches - English-Speaking Group Focus Group Responses to Existing Campaign Approaches - Hispanic Group Campaign Component Development - English-Speaking Group |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Table 1 Belt Use by Vehicle Type, 1998 - 2003 |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
Passenger Cars |
Vans & SUVs |
Pickup Trucks |
Fall 1998 |
71% |
70% |
59% |
Fall 2000 |
74% |
74% |
59% |
June 2001 |
76% |
75% |
62% |
June 2002 |
77% |
78% |
64% |
June 2003 |
81% |
83% |
69% |
Source: NCSA, 2003. |
|||
Also, safety belt usage is lower in secondary law enforcement States when compared with primary law enforcement States. Safety belt use rates for all vehicle types combined are 83 percent in primary law States versus 75 percent in secondary law States (NOPUS 2003). NHTSA provides a breakdown based on vehicle type and type of enforcement as shown in Table 2. As indicated, safety belt usage in pickup trucks in primary law States is 73 percent as compared to 63 percent in secondary law States. Interestingly, in two primary law States, Georgia and Indiana, the primary laws do not apply to pickup trucks. Despite the fact that the primary law in Indiana does not apply to pickup trucks, safety belt usage has increased for this group.
Table 2 Safety Belt Use in 2003 In Primary and Secondary Law States By Vehicle Type |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
Primary Enforcement Law States Passenger Cars Vans and SUVs Pickup Trucks |
All 83% 84% 86% 73% |
Drivers 85% 86% 74% |
Passengers 81% 86% 73% |
Secondary Enforcement Law States Passenger Cars Vans and SUVs Pickup Trucks |
All 75% 78% 78% 63% |
Drivers 79% 79% 63% |
Passengers 74% 77% 60% |
Source: NCSA, 2003
Safety belt usage varies by type of vehicle and occupant category. For NOPUS 2002, NHTSA noted belt use rate for drivers of passenger cars was 78 percent whereas belt use rate for passenger car passengers was 74 percent. Further, the rate for drivers of pickup trucks was noted at 66 percent and the rate for pickup truck passengers was 63 percent. Rural pickup truck drivers, based on the most recent data from NCSA (2002), are less likely to use safety belts than pickup truck drivers in urban and suburban areas. Male pickup truck drivers are less likely to use safety belts than female pickup truck drivers. Regardless of what year is examined, how the figures are broken out, there are consistent trends regarding pickup truck occupant safety belt use: pickup truck occupants have the lowest safety belt use rate of all vehicle types; pickup truck passengers have a slightly lower safety belt use rate than pickup truck drivers; pickup truck safety belt use rates among both driver and passengers are lower in secondary law States versus primary law States; and males have lower safety belt use rate than females regardless of vehicle type.
As an initial step to address the specific factors associates with low safety belt use, focus groups were conducted with rural, male pickup truck drivers to determine their knowledge and attitudes about safety belt usage. Before developing public information campaigns and testing strategies to change behaviors, it is important to determine how intended audiences perceive the public information and educational materials (see Glanz and Lewis for information about social marketing).
IV. SUMMARY OF STATE SAFETY BELT LAWS AS OF NOVEMBER 2000
Before selecting the States in which the focus groups would be conducted, data about State safety belt laws was compiled. This data was useful in helping the researchers to strategically select States in which the focus groups would be conducted. The researchers, in conjunction with NHTSA, made the final selection of the States chosen for the focus groups. Information about State safety belt laws was gathered from a variety of sources. Each State's department of motor vehicle (DMV) driver manual (as of November 2000) was reviewed to determine what information is provided to drivers about each State's safety belt laws. Also, State web sites were searched for information regarding safety belt laws. In addition, State Governors' Highway Safety Representatives were contacted.
As of November 2000, when this project was initiated, four States had laws that were different for pickup truck occupants as compared to other passenger vehicles. The States were Georgia (exempts pickup trucks altogether), Indiana (exempts trucks, including pickup trucks), Missouri (exempts trucks greater than 12,000 pounds, and occupants in cargo beds when all seats are occupied and vehicle is only means of immediate family transportation), and Oregon (trucks greater than 8,000 pounds and not considered to be a commercial vehicle). As of August 2002, a number of States such as Minnesota, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wisconsin exempt farm vehicles which may include pickup trucks from their laws. New Hampshire does not currently have an adult safety belt law for any type of vehicle.
Twenty States had no laws restricting occupant travel in the cargo area of a pickup truck. Twenty-five States had laws making it illegal for children to ride in the cargo area of pickup trucks, even when all seats are occupied. Seven of these States prohibited children under certain ages. A common exception to the safety belt law was to allow children to ride in the cargo area if all the seats of the pickup truck are filled with occupants. In some States, exemptions to the safety belt and cargo area laws still exist. (For more recent information about these laws, there are a number of excellent web sites including NHTSA's web site: www.nhtsa.dot.gov .) In conclusion, States still vary in the applicability of their safety belt laws to pickup trucks.
V. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INFORMATION AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS
Before designing and implementing new strategies to enhance safety belt use among pickup truck drivers, researchers determined what public information and educational programs already existed that were designed for pickup truck drivers. Questionnaires about States' efforts to promote belt use in pickup trucks through public information and educational programs were sent to each Governor's Office of Highway Safety for the 50 States, District of Columbia, Guam, and Puerto Rico. Eighteen States reported that they had population specific initiatives with public information, education and/or enforcement campaigns about safety belt usage. Of these eighteen States, seven planned to develop more pickup truck campaigns in the future. Nearly half of the 50 States have never tried nor intend to specifically address the pickup truck occupant population through safety campaigns. There have been limited efforts designed specifically for the pickup truck driver population, a group with high risk for death and injury.
Five States provided samples of campaign materials that they have used. The campaign materials included radio scripts, bumper stickers, posters, television video, radio cassettes, and pamphlets. Materials from the five States were used during the focus group sessions. The existing materials were used in the focus groups to determine how the materials were perceived by a variety of groups of pickup truck drivers, and also to provide suggestions about the types of public educational appeals to use in future initiatives that are designed for pickup truck drivers. It is noted that the existing campaign materials were not identified as "best practice" types of materials. One of the main reasons for conducting the focus groups was to determine how pickup truck drivers perceived the existing materials. Based upon these focus group results, suggestions for future public information and educational campaign themes and approaches would be made available to States to incorporate into their initiatives designed to reach pickup truck drivers.
VI. FOCUS GROUPS
Eight focus groups were conducted with younger and older male pickup truck drivers who lived or worked in the rural areas of four States: Georgia, Michigan, Texas, and Montana. At the time of the study, Georgia, Michigan, and Texas were primary safety belt law States and Montana was a secondary law State.
There were several objectives for conducting the focus groups:
Focus group research is intended to gain insight about the perception of various themes and methods for public educational and information campaigns. The data are qualitative, rather than quantitative, and provide insight and understanding about particular issues. The findings are not a statistical representation of the attitudes of rural, male pickup truck drivers about safety issues and safety belt use.
The findings of the eight focus groups revealed consistency of thought, opinion, and ideas. The men gave clear reasons why they did not wear their safety belts, such as they felt protected by size of vehicle; different driving style in a pickup truck, nature of vehicle use (short, work-related trips); being "trapped" after the crash; and anger/resentment over mandatory safety belt laws. The men did indicate, however, that they are more likely to wear their safety belts when family or friends are with them; on interstate highways; in large cities; and in bad weather. Some of the participants indicated they were more likely to wear their safety belt in their car because of the presence of family members and less likely to wear their belt in their truck, especially when driving alone. Nearly all of the participants agreed on the best approaches and elements to use in educational and enforcement campaigns designed to encourage pickup truck drivers to wear their safety belts.
The participants pointed out inconsistencies between State safety belt laws and laws for other highway safety areas. For example, the men discussed the issue that many States lack motorcycle helmet laws and yet have laws that require safety belt use. Many of the men raised this example as a justification for ignoring safety belt laws. They also felt that governments should not be mandating safety belt use, especially if there are inconsistencies across safety areas.
Whether young or old, the men were not impressed with messages that used statistical facts about deaths and injuries as a motivator to increase safety belt use. There was a general consensus of distrust about the use of "numbers." It was thought that statistics could be used to prove whatever point one chooses to make.
When developing new public information and educational campaigns directed to male pickup truck drivers, there are a number of themes and issues that could be addressed in the messages. Based upon the qualitative findings of these focus groups, it is recommended that the messages address and "counter" the following misunderstandings and reasons given for nonuse of safety belts by male, rural pickup truck drivers:
A number of alternative messages and approaches to "counter" the reasons for non-use of safety belts could be included in new educational campaigns such as:
New educational campaigns that emphasize crash fears should be carefully designed. The Hispanic men and all of the younger men were not concerned about dying in a crash. Messages for these men should not show crashes that are so severe that survival in any event would be questionable. Instead, message themes about crash fears should emphasize: paralysis and wheelchair use; loss of limb; and impact on family including feelings of sadness and leaving them behind.
Overall, pickup truck drivers recommended that messages be short and to the point, realistic, presented in "local" context, and translated appropriately. In summary, the participants of the focus groups recommend that new messages and campaigns should: