States upgrade to primary enforcement seat belt laws : traffic tech.
-
Published Date:2011-09-01
-
Language:English
-
Details:
-
Corporate Creators:
-
Publication/ Report Number:
-
Resource Type:
-
Geographical Coverage:
-
Corporate Publisher:
-
Abstract:States with primary seat belt enforcement laws consistently
have higher observed daytime seat belt use rates than secondary
law States. Secondary belt law States, on the other
hand, consistently have more motor vehicle fatalities who
were not restrained than do primary law States. Primary
laws are associated with a 10 to 12% increase in observed
belt rates and 9- to 10-percentage-point increases among
occupants killed in fatal motor vehicle crashes. Observed
seat belt use averages 88.2% in States with primary belt
enforcement laws and 79.1% in States with secondary
enforcement (NHTSA, 2009).
Since the year 2000, 14 States upgraded their seat belt laws
to primary enforcement status. This study documents the
roles, strategies, resources, and arguments States used
in their actions to pass primary belt laws. The 10 States
that upgraded their seat belt laws between 2004 and 2009
(Tennessee, South Carolina, Alaska, Mississippi, Kentucky,
Maine, Minnesota, Arkansas, Florida, and Wisconsin)
provided in-depth information about the successes
and challenges they encountered during the process. It
includes a literature review of the legislative history of
primary belt laws.
Researchers conducted more than 80 in-depth interviews
with a variety of people who played key roles in the process
of upgrading to primary enforcement. Each of the
10 case study States was unique in terms of the approach
they used to pass a primary belt law, but there were common
efforts and themes among them.
Advocates pointed out that it is important to understand
that passing a primary law is a multiyear effort involving
a broad network of organizations and individuals.
They need to identify and effectively respond to opposition
arguments specific to their State. One persuasive element
in many of the States was to make legislators aware
of the availability of Section 406 Safety Belt Performance
Grants, a portion of which could be used for highway and
infrastructure projects. Advocates often hired lobbyists to provide information to address concerns of legislators.
They also engaged the media to present a balanced view
of the issues and report public support. Presenting the bill
as a public health issue to save lives, reduce injuries, and
reduce State medical expenditures attracted diverse partners
and broadened the debate.
-
Subject/TRT Terms:
-
-
Format:
-
-
Collection(s):
-
Main Document Checksum:
-
Supporting Files:No Additional Files
No Related Documents.
You May Also Like: