2003 SURVEY RESULTS

CHAPTER 4: ATTITUDES, KNOWLEDGE, AND EXPERIENCE WITH SAFETY BELT LAWS AND THEIR ENFORCEMENT

Attitudes Toward Safety Belt Laws
At the time the survey was conducted, 49 states plus the District of Columbia had laws requiring safety belt use that were applicable to adults, New Hampshire being the exception (see Appendix B). Respondents were asked their attitudes about enactment and enforcement of the laws, their knowledge of the safety belt laws in their own State, and their personal experience with safety belt law enforcement. Most persons age 16 and older (88%) favored requiring drivers and front seat passengers to wear safety belts. More than two-thirds (69%) favored such laws a lot, and an additional 18% favored them somewhat. Eleven percent did not favor such laws at all while 1% was unsure.

figure 56 - click [d] for long description[d]

 

Females (92%) voiced stronger support for front seat safety belt laws than did males (82%) . The oldest and youngest age groups were most likely to say that they supported front seat safety belt laws.

figure 57 - click [d] for long description[d]

 

Blacks (92%) and Hispanics (93%) were more likely to express support for front seat safety belt laws than Whites (86%) and non-Hispanics (87%). This pattern of greater support among minority groups for legislation and enforcement was repeated on other questionnaire items addressed in this Chapter.

figure 58 - click [d] for long description[d]

 

As expected, support for safety belt laws was strongest among those who used their safety belt most often. Nine-in-ten drivers (90%) who said they used their safety belt “all of the time” favored front seat safety belt laws “a lot” or “some.” The figure dropped to 83% of “most of the time” safety belt users, and 69% of “some of the time” users. Among drivers who rarely or never wore safety belts, 47% said they favored laws requiring safety belt use by drivers and front seat passengers.

figure 59 - click [d] for long description[d]

 

If respondents said that they favored front seat safety belt laws (either somewhat or a lot), the interviewers then asked them if they also supported laws that applied to the back seat as well. Four-fifths (80%) said yes. This equates to more than two-thirds (70%) of the total population age 16 and older supporting safety belt laws that apply to both the front and back seats (80% of the 88% who favored front seat laws).

figure 60 - click [d] for long description[d]

 

As noted on the previous page, 70% of persons believed that safety belt laws should apply to vehicle occupants in both the front and back seats. The percentage was higher among females (76%) than males (64%), and higher among Hispanics (83%) than non-Hispanics (68%).

figure 61 - click [d] for long description[d]

 

The least support across age groups for both front and back seat laws was recorded for persons ages 21 through 24 (62%).

figure 62 - click [d] for long description[d]

 

Attitudes Toward Enforcement Of Safety Belt Laws
The public tended to favor enforcing safety belt laws with fines, but not with points on the driver’s license. About two-thirds (65%) of the population age 16 and older supported fines for drivers who did not wear safety belts. Less than half that many (31%) supported points against the license as a penalty; another 2% said it depended on past violations. As indicated on page 110, 12% of the population opposed front seat safety belt laws entirely or did not know if they did (they did not receive the fines/points questions and therefore are separated from those who did).

figure 63 - click [d] for long description[d]

 

Females were more likely to support fines and points against a license for safety belt violations than males (fines: 71% to 59%, points: 34% to 28%). Blacks and Whites were equal in their support for fines (64%) and points (31% to 30%). However, Hispanics were much more likely to support both fines (74% to 64%) and points (45% to 30%) for safety belt violations than non-Hispanics.

figure 64 - click [d] for long description[d]

 

There was little difference in support for fines for safety belt violations by age. However, younger persons (under 25) were more likely to support points than older persons.

figure 65 - click [d] for long description[d]

 

Support for points was highest among those who had not graduated high school and those with incomes under $15,000.

Table 39
Support For Fines And Points By Demographic Characteristics

Qx: Do you favor or oppose fines for drivers who do not wear seat belts?
Qx: Do you favor or oppose receiving points against a license as a penalty for seat belt violations?
Base: Total population age 16+.

 
*Fines
*Points
 
Unweighted N
Favor
Oppose
**Oppose belt laws
Favor
Oppose
**Oppose belt laws
Total
(6180)
65%
19%
12%
31%
49%
12%
Education
11 or less
(806)
66%
19%
11%
43%
38%
11%
HS grad/GED
(1791)
63%
21%
13%
28%
52%
13%
Some college
(1474)
64%
19%
14%
29%
51%
14%
College grad
(2072)
67%
19%
11%
31%
51%
11%
Income
<$15,000
(643)
67%
19%
9%
39%
44%
9%
$15,000-29,999
(957)
63%
20%
13%
35%
45%
13%
$30,000-49,999
(1278)
66%
19%
12%
30%
51%
12%
$50,000-74,999
(1064)
66%
19%
12%
30%
52%
12%
$75,000-99,999
(615)
63%
19%
16%
28%
52%
16%
$100,000+
(702)
66%
19%
13%
30%
51%
13%
Vehicle type
Car
(3276)
67%
19%
11%
32%
50%
11%
Van/Minivan
(558)
69%
20%
9%
32%
55%
9%
Pickup truck
(860)
55%
21%
21%
26%
49%
21%
SUV
(745)
69%
15%
12%
30%
53%
12%
*The three response categories (favor/oppose/oppose belt laws) do not sum to 100% because persons who answered DK/Refused or Depends to the questions on fines or points are not shown in the table.

**Includes those who did not know, or refused to say, if they supported front seat safety belt laws (they were not asked the questions on fines or points). This was about 1 percentage point for almost all groups


Interviewers asked those who supported fines as a sanction what they thought the minimum fine should be for the first safety belt violation. They then asked the same respondents what they thought the fine should be for repeat safety belt violations. If it was a first time violation, 40% supported fines under $50 (or no fine at all) while 18% supported fines of $100 or more. However, the respondents generally favored stiffer fines if it was a repeat violation: only 13% supported fines under $50 while 48% supported fines of $100 or more.

figure 66 - click [d] for long description[d]

 

The survey sought to determine whether the public believed that existing fine amounts can affect behavior. Respondents were asked if someone they knew who didn’t use safety belts all of the time would wear them more often if assessed the amount of the fine in their State (in the one State not having a belt law applicable to adults an amount of $25 was used; in States where the fine amount was within a designated range an amount of $50 was used). When the general level of the fines increased, the expectations for behavior change did as well. If fined $10 or less, 33% thought that someone they knew would probably or definitely wear safety belts more often. This increased to 47% with fines of $20, 49% with fines of $30-$49, and to 59% with fines of $50.

figure 67 - click [d] for long description[d]

 

Respondents were asked how they would likely react to getting a ticket for a safety belt violation. The interviewers gave respondents two choices and asked which was more likely; that they would believe they deserved the ticket because they broke the law, or they would believe the ticket was undeserved because wearing a safety belt should be a personal choice. This question was designed to enable comparison of the public’s views about safety belt laws from the societal perspective (support for belt laws in principle) and the personal perspective (reaction to personally receiving some punishment for violating the laws). According to the data, 71% would be more likely to believe that they deserved the ticket.

figure 68 - click [d] for long description[d]

 

The survey found attitudes toward safety belt laws in general, and attitudes about the fairness of personally receiving a ticket for a safety belt violation, to be somewhat consistent with one another although not entirely so. About six-in-seven persons (87%) who said they favored front seat safety belt laws “a lot” also said they would deserve the ticket for breaking the law. This figure dropped to 48% for those who favored the laws “some”. Still, 11% who favored the laws “a lot” responded that they would not deserve the ticket because it should be a personal choice (about 2% “did not know” their likely reaction or did not answer). Conversely, 18% of those who did not favor the laws at all said they would deserve the ticket.

figure 69 - click [d] for long description[d]

 

Females (76%) were more likely than males (66%) to believe that their probable reaction would be that they deserved the ticket. Almost one-third of males (31%) instead chose the argument that they did not deserve the ticket because it should be a personal choice. In addition, Hispanics (81%) and Blacks (74%) were more likely than non-Hispanics (70%) and Whites (70%) to answer that they likely would feel that they deserved the ticket.

figure 70 - click [d] for long description[d]

 

Knowledge Of State Safety Belt Laws
Interviewers asked respondents whether or not their State had a safety belt law, and then asked questions about the law’s coverage and enforcement guidelines. Most people (94%) believed their State did indeed have a safety belt law. Those that didn’t were usually uncertain about the existence of a State law. At the time of the survey, New Hampshire was the only State not having a safety belt law applicable to adults. When the few survey cases from New Hampshire (30) were excluded from the analysis, the percentage of those who believed there was a State law remained unchanged at 94%.

figure 71 - click [d] for long description[d]

 

Those persons who believed their State had a law requiring safety belt use were asked who the law covered. The interviewers asked the respondents if each of the following groups was required to wear safety belts: drivers, children in the front seat, children in the back seat, adult passengers in the front seat, and adult passengers in the back seat. Almost everyone believed the law covered drivers (98%), children in the front (93%), and adult passengers in the front (94%). Many thought the law also covered children in the back (86%). Fewer that half (48%) assumed that adults were required to wear safety belts in the back seat.

figure 72 - click [d] for long description[d]

 

The next three pages show self-reported belt use for a specific seating position for persons who believed there was a law requiring usage in that seating position. For purposes of comparison, these pages also present self-reported belt use for persons who did not know there was a law, or did not believe that seating position was covered by the law, or were unsure if that seating position was covered by the law. Among drivers who thought there was a law requiring drivers to wear safety belts, 85% said they used their safety belt “all of the time” while driving. If they did not say that drivers were covered by a law, 83% said they wore safety belts “all of the time” while driving.

figure 73 - click [d] for long description[d]

 

Eighty-three percent of those who said there was a safety belt law that covered adult front seat passengers also reported that they always wore their safety belt when sitting as passengers in the front seat. This compared to 79% of those who were unaware of a law, or did not say it covered front seat adult passengers.

figure 74 - click [d] for long description[d]

 

The law appeared to make the greatest difference for safety belt use in the rear seating position. Among those who thought there was a law that covered the back seat, 62% said they used their safety belt “all of the time” when riding in the back. Only 45% of those who did not think or did not know if there was a law said that they wore their safety belt “all of the time” while riding in the back seat.

figure 75 - click [d] for long description[d]

 

Figure 76 segments those persons who thought there was a State law into groups based on the extent they believed that the law covered adults. Forty-seven percent believed that the law applied to all adults in the vehicle (drivers, passengers in the front, and passengers in the back). About the same percentage (46%) thought that the law applied to only drivers and front seat passengers. Five percent said that the law applied to drivers only. The remainder of the respondents (2%) either provided a different permutation from the combinations possible, or else indicated that they did not know who the law covered.

figure 76 - click [d] for long description[d]

 

The greater the coverage of the law, the more likely that persons correctly identified who in the vehicle was required to wear safety belts. In States where all seating positions were covered, 72% of the respondents correctly agreed that drivers, adult front seat passengers, and adult back seat passengers were required to wear safety belts. If the State law only covered the front seating positions, then fewer (55%) correctly agreed that drivers and adult front seat passengers, but not adult back seat passengers, were required to wear safety belts. Another 37% in these States believed that all seating positions were covered.

Table 40
Beliefs About Who Is Required To Wear Safety Belts By Seating Positions Covered By State Law

Qx: Who is required to wear seat belts according to your state law? Are (READ ITEM) required to wear seat belts?
Base: Believe that state has a safety belt law.

Who public believes is required to wear safety belts
What state law requires
Driver and all passengers to wear safety belts
Only driver and front seat passengers to wear safety belts
(N=1695)
(N=4095)
Driver and all passengers
72%
37%
Driver only
4%
6%
Driver and front seat passengers
22%
55%
Other/Not sure/Refused
2%
2%


Pages 128-130 examined self-reported safety belt use according to beliefs about which seating positions were covered by the State law. Table 41 summarizes self-reported safety belt use according to the actual provisions of the State law. The results were similar in that the major difference occurred in the back seat. Without a law covering the back seating position, people were far less likely to report wearing their safety belt while riding in the back seat.

Table 41
Self-Reported Safety Belt Use By Seating Positions Covered By State Law

Qx: When driving this (car/truck/van), how often do you wear your (shoulder/lap) belt?
Qx: When riding as a passenger in the front seat how often do you wear your seat belt
Qx: When riding as a passenger in the back seat how often do you wear your seat belt?
Base: Drivers whose primary vehicle has safety belts/Persons who at least on occasion ride as passengers.

Self-reported safety belt use for different seating positions
What state law requires
Driver and all passengers to wear safety belts
Only driver and front seat passengers to wear safety belts
Seat belt use as driver
(Drivers only/N=1611)
(Drivers only/N=3900)
All of the time
88%
84%
Most of the time
7%
9%
Some of the time
2%
4%
Rarely
1%
2%
Never
1%
2%
Seat belt use in front seat
(N=1642)
(N=3998)
All of the time
86%
82%
Most of the time
9%
10%
Some of the time
3%
4%
Rarely
1%
2%
Never
1%
2%
Seat belt use in back seat
(N=1642)
(N=3998)
All of the time
67%
47%
Most of the time
11%
13%
Some of the time
6%
9%
Rarely
5%
9%
Never
7%
15%
Never ride in back
4%
7%


Standard Or Secondary Enforcement Provisions Of Safety Belt Laws
State safety belt laws contain either standard or secondary enforcement provisions. Under standard enforcement (also known as primary enforcement), law enforcement officers can stop a vehicle on the basis of observing a safety belt violation. Under secondary enforcement an officer must observe some other violation first before stopping a vehicle. At the time of the survey 18 States plus the District of Columbia had standard enforcement provisions, and 31 State laws required secondary enforcement. Among persons who thought their State had a law, 66% believed it permitted standard enforcement. This equates to 62% of the total population age 16 and older (66% of the 94% who believed there was a State law).

figure 77 - click [d] for long description[d]

 

Among persons living in States having safety belt laws with standard enforcement provisions, over three-quarters (77%) reported that police could stop vehicles on the basis of observing safety belt violations (this figure is based on the total population; not just those who thought there was a law). In States having secondary enforcement provisions, there actually were more persons who incorrectly believed that police could stop a vehicle based on observing a safety belt violation (46%) than those who correctly knew that some other violation must be the basis for stopping the vehicle (31%).

figure 78 - click [d] for long description[d]

 

Drivers in States having standard enforcement provisions reported more frequent safety belt use than did those in secondary enforcement States. In States where law enforcement officers could stop motor vehicles on the basis of observing safety belt violations, 89% of drivers said that they wore their safety belt “all of the time” while driving. The comparable figure for drivers in secondary enforcement States was 81%.

figure 79 - click [d] for long description[d]

 

The previous page looked at differences in safety belt use based on whether the State law called for standard or secondary enforcement. Presented below is drivers’ reported safety belt usage separated according to their beliefs about the provisions of the State law. The results were similar to the previous analysis. If drivers thought that their State law permitted standard enforcement, then they were more likely to answer that they wore their safety belt “all of the time” (86%) compared to drivers who did not think their State allowed this (80%).

figure 80 - click [d] for long description[d]

 

While reported safety belt usage was higher in standard enforcement States, there did not appear to be major differences between standard and secondary enforcement States in the perceived utility of safety belts. Table 42 compares respondents in the two groups of States on several belt utility items, as well as other attitudes. Comparison of those attitudes directly associated with enforcement are addressed later in this Chapter.

Table 42
Attitudes Concerning Utility Of Safety Belts By Whether State Safety Belt Law Permits Standard
Or Secondary Enforcement

Qx: Now I’m going to read you a few statements. Please tell me whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree.
Qx: Do you agree or disagree that if it is your time to die, you’ll die, so it doesn’t matter whether you wear your seat belt?
Base: Total population age 16+.

 
Provisions of state law
Standard
Secondary
(N=3334)
(N=2816)
Strongly or somewhat agree with statement:
Seat belts are just as likely to harm you as help you.
34%
37%
An accident close to home is usually not as serious as an accident farther away.
17%
14%
If I were in an accident, I would want to have my seat belt on.
95%
94%
Most motor vehicle accidents happen within five miles of home.
79%
82%
I would feel self-conscious around my friends if I wore a seat belt and they did not.
21%
17%
Medical insurance costs would be lower if more people wore seat belts.
65%
65%
Putting on a seat belt makes me worry more about being in an accident.
17%
12%
Agree with statement:
If it is your time to die, you’ll die, so it doesn’t matter whether you wear your seat belt.
26%
27%


Besides exploring respondents’ awareness of the enforcement provisions of their State law, the survey collected data on whether or not respondents supported standard enforcement. More than six-in-ten (64%) agreed that police should be allowed to stop a vehicle if they observed a safety belt violation when no other traffic laws were being broken. The figure was higher (71%) in States currently permitting standard enforcement of safety belt laws. Yet even in States with secondary enforcement provisions, more than half of the public (56%) supported standard enforcement.

figure 81 - click [d] for long description[d]

 

Support for standard enforcement provisions was greater among females (68%) than males (59%), greater among Blacks (67%) than Whites (62%), and greater among Hispanics (74%) than non-Hispanics (62%). Persons age 21 through 24 showed the least support (57%) compared to any other age range listed below.

Table 43
Support For Standard Enforcement By Gender, Age, Race, And Ethnicity

Qx: In your opinion, should police be allowed to stop a vehicle if they observe a seat belt violation when no other traffic laws are being broken?
Base: Total population age 16+.

 
Unweighted N
Yes
No
Not sure/ Refused
Total
(6180)
64%
33%
3%
Gender
Female
(3244)
68%
28%
4%
Male
(2936)
59%
38%
2%
Age
16-20
(531)
64%
34%
3%
21-24
(468)
57%
41%
3%
25-34
(1393)
63%
34%
3%
35-44
(1360)
62%
35%
3%
45-54
(948)
62%
35%
3%
55-64
(636)
67%
31%
2%
65+
(764)
70%
24%
6%
Race
Black
(537)
67%
30%
3%
White
(4591)
62%
35%
3%
Ethnicity
Hispanic
(757)
74%
22%
4%
Non-Hispanic
(5386)
62%
34%
3%


Back
Top
Next
Table of Contents