DOT HS 809 711 May 2004

Rural Pickup Truck Drivers and

Safety Belt Use:

Focus Group Report
This publication is distributed by the U.S. Department of

Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

in the interest of information exchange. The opinions, findings

and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the

author(s) and not necessarily those of the Department of

Transportation or the National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration. The United States Government assumes no

liability for its content or use thereof. If trade or manufacturer’s

names or products are mentioned, it is because they are considered

essential to the object of the publication and should not be construed

as an endorsement. The United States Government does not

endorse products or manufacturers.
ii

Technical Report Documentation Page 

1. Report No. 

DOT HS 809 711 

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 

5. Report Date 

May 2004 

4. Title and Subtitle 

Rural Pickup Truck Drivers and Safety Belt Use: 

Focus Group Report

6. Performing Organization Code 

7. Author(s) 

Nitzburg, Marsha and Knoblauch, Richard 

8. Performing Organization Report No. 

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) 

Center for Applied Research, Inc. 

 9661 Fringe Tree Road 

 Great Falls, VA 22066

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTNH22-99-D-15099

13. Type of Report and Period Covered 

Final Report 

Period: September 2000-February 2003 

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address’ 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

 400 Seventh Street, S.W 

 Washington, D.C. 20590 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

15. Supplementary Notes 

Donna M. Taglione was the moderator for the focus groups in Detroit, Michigan; Atlanta, Georgia; and Great Falls, 

Montana. 

Jorge Cherbosque was the moderator for the focus group in Lubbock, Texas.

16. Abstract 

In 1997, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) established the Buckle Up America Campaign, 

a national initiative to save lives and prevent injuries through the proper use of safety belts and child safety seats. One of the 

main goals of this campaign is to increase national safety belt use, with a current goal of 79 percent by 2004. Although 

safety belt use for pickup truck occupants increased from 59 percent to 69 percent from 1998 to 2003, safety belt use rates 

have remained well below that of occupants of other vehicle types. In comparison, from 1998 to 2003, safety belt use in 

passenger cars rose from 71 percent to 81 percent. Lower belt use rates for pickup truck occupants exist throughout all 

regions of the United States. In 2000, NHTSA determined that more information was needed to address the specific issues 

associated with low safety belt use among rural pickup truck occupants. This report was created as an initial step to assist 

NHTSA with future demonstration projects that are designed to test strategies to raise safety belt use rates among pickup 

truck occupants. 

This report presents background information about safety belt use among rural pickup truck drivers. Specifically, an 

inventory of pickup truck safety belt and children in cargo area laws, as of November 2000, is presented; safety belt usage 

rates, fatality rates, and characteristics of pickup truck drivers and passengers, as of November 2000, are summarized; and 

public information campaigns intended for pickup truck drivers, as of 2000, are reviewed. 

Also, qualitative data about pickup truck drivers’ knowledge and attitudes about safety belt use and public information 

materials are summarized. To gather this information, eight focus groups were conducted with male pickup truck drivers 

from rural areas in Georgia, Michigan, Montana and Texas. Among the key findings are: male pickup truck drivers reported 

that they are generally safety conscious about work and household issues, but not about safety belt use; most believed that 

safety belts are important, but found them uncomfortable, restrictive and a “hassle;” some reported wearing safety belts 

when traveling in passenger cars but not in their pickup trucks; and they were more likely to use safety belts when family 

members pressured them to wear their safety belts. Regarding communication materials (TV, radio scripts, posters, 

brochures), most of the men preferred communication messages that are as realistic as possible. They did not appreciate the 

use of humor in messages, and mistrusted celebrity spokespersons and the use of statistics in messages. Based on these 

results, suggestions for campaign message development, intended for the male, rural pickup driver population are presented. 

17. Key Word 

Safety belt 

 Pickup trucks 

 Model programs 

18. Distribution Statement 

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 

Unclassified 

20. Security Classif. (of this page) 

Unclassified 

21. No. of Pages 22. Price 

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized 

iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

I. BACKGROUND 

The reader is reminded that the following report presents findings based on data collected during 

the project period in the year 2000. The data was utilized when considering selection for the 

focus group sites, available material was utilized during the focus groups, and in general all the 

research was intended as a baseline analysis of what existed at the onset of this study. This 

report includes the most current NHTSA data, were applicable, as of November 2003. The 

reader will note these insertions in boxes below charts or figures, noted as, Data Update. Data 

updates are intended only to provide the reader with current information. 

II. INTRODUCTION 

Occupants of pickup trucks consistently have lower safety belt use rates than occupants of 

automobiles, vans and Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs). According to the 2003 National Occupant 

Protection Use Survey (NOPUS), the observed safety belt use rate among occupants of pickup 

trucks increased from 59 percent in 1998 to 69 percent in 2003. Despite this increase, the rate 

remains far below the overall national safety belt use rate of 79 percent for all vehicles. 

Occupants of pickup trucks are at a high risk for serious injury or death given their lower safety 

belt usage. 

There have been a number of private and public strategies to increase safety belt use nationally. 

In 1997, The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) established and 

promoted the Buckle Up America Initiative (BUA) to increase safety belt use. Since then, the 

national safety belt use rate increased when coordinated plans and efforts included the enactment 

of strong safety belt laws; enforcement of safety belt laws; expanded information and public 

education campaigns; and private and public partnerships. More recently, results of the Click It 

or Ticket campaign indicate that statewide safety belt use for drivers of all vehicle types 

increases with intensive enforcement of a State’s safety belt law that is well publicized with paid 

advertising. Click It or Ticket conveys the simple, direct message: wear your safety belt or you 

will get a ticket. The campaign works in both primary and secondary safety belt law States. 

Primary safety belt laws permit law enforcement personnel to stop drivers when occupants are 

not wearing safety belts and issue citations as they do with other traffic law violations. Primary 

safety belt laws may vary regarding which vehicle seating positions are covered by the law. (For 

example, a primary safety belt law may apply to use of belts in front seats only.) Also, some 

laws do not apply to all vehicles and allow exemptions. Secondary safety belt laws require law 

enforcement to first stop the vehicle for some other violation before issuing a citation for not 

wearing a safety belt. 

In an effort to establish effective avenues to increase safety belt use among pickup truck drivers 

and occupants, an identified hard-to-reach and high-risk population, NHTSA determined that 

more background information was needed to design effective public information and education 

campaigns for this population. This project, initiated in September 2000, was an initial step to 

assist NHTSA with future demonstration projects that will test strategies to raise safety belt use 

rates among pickup truck occupants. The objectives of this project were to: 
iv

• Identify safety belt use rates and fatality rates for pickup truck drivers and passengers; 

• Identify important characteristics of pickup truck drivers and passengers; 

• Inventory pickup truck safety belt laws and children in cargo area laws; 

• Review public information campaigns intended for pickup truck drivers; 

• Gather qualitative information about pickup truck drivers’ knowledge and attitudes 

about safety belt use, and public information and educational campaigns; and, 

• Make suggestions for the development of future campaign messages intended for 

pickup truck drivers. 

III. DEFINING THE PROBLEM 

NHTSA conducts NOPUS to gather detailed information about shoulder belt use for drivers and 

right front-seat passengers across America. While there have been steady increases in safety belt 

use rates for all types of vehicles, the belt use rate in pickup trucks lags about 12 percentage 

points below that of passengers cars, vans, and SUVs as shown in Table 1. 

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. 
v

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 
vi

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 
vii

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: 

• To find out more about specific approaches and message themes that might convince 

male pickup truck drivers to use their safety belts; 

• To determine attitudes about allowing children to travel in the cargo area of pickup 

trucks; and, 

• To investigate any differences in these issues between Hispanic and non-Hispanic pickup 

truck drivers. 

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, workrelated 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 they 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 
viii

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: 

• Safety belts are uncomfortable 

• Safety belts are restrictive 

• Safety belts are a “hassle” with frequent getting in and out of vehicles 

• Skepticism about the benefits of safety belts 

• Concerns about getting trapped in vehicle with the use of safety belts 

• Freedom of choice to use/not use safety belts 

• Safety belts are not needed on local roads and low speed limits 

• Safety belts are not needed on short trips 

• Safety belts are not needed in good weather 

• Safety belt use is less critical when in a pickup truck because it is a safer vehicle due to 

its “sheer size”

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: 

• Showing crash damage with low speed crashes 

• Showing results of ejections and rollovers without the use of safety belts 

• Emphasizing the benefits of using safety belts on short trips 

• Presenting ways to make the use of safety belts a “habit” 

• Presenting countermeasures to the “discomfort” issue such as adjustment of the belt for 

a better fit 

• Countering the “mind set” of freedom to choose to wear a safety belt 

• Comparing societal acceptance of DWI laws with societal benefit and acceptance to 

safety belt use 

• Countering the Hispanic and youth “fate” approach to crashes and injuries 

• Showing the increased risk of injury or death from rollovers and ejections among 

pickup trucks 

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: 
ix

• Use realism 

• Be short and to the point 

• Show consequences to family members 

• Show every day events, local areas, and real people 

• Film messages in rural communities 

• Use spokesperson from the local community, celebrities are not recommended 

• Show real people who have been in crashes 

• Use First Responders who have gone to crash scenes 

• Stress “medical consequences” such as paralysis (for Hispanic and younger male 

audiences) 

• Show the possibility of survival if safety belt had been used in a violent crash 

• Film and record Hispanic versions that are not just language translations 

• Be careful with use of statistics. If used express as odds, not percentages-use “1 out of 

3,” not 33 percent 

• Refrain from using humor 

This report provides useful information when designing public information and educational 

campaigns for rural pickup truck drivers. Based on the results of the focus groups conducted 

with male, rural pickup truck drivers, a number of specific suggestions regarding the 

development of messages and material are provided. A public information and educational 

campaign tailored for pickup truck drivers is only one component of a comprehensive initiative 

to increase the use of safety belts among pickup truck drivers. Different strategies need to be 

tested that incorporate messages designed specifically for pickup truck drivers with existing 

enforcement campaigns such as the Click It or Ticket campaign. For example, what are effective 

strategies to coordinate State Click It or Ticket campaigns with campaigns specifically designed 

for pickup truck drivers? The results of this focus group study will assist NHTSA with the 

development of future demonstration projects that are designed to test a variety of strategies to 

raise safety belt use among pickup truck occupants. 
x

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 

II. DEFINING THE PROBLEM.................................................................................... 2 

Occupant Restraint Use.............................................................................................. 2 

 F atalities ................................................................................................................... 6

Gender and Other Characteristics.............................................................................. 9 

III. SUMMARY OF STATE SAFETY BELT LAWS AS OF NOVEMBER 2000 ....... 9 

Exemptions for Pickup Trucks................................................................................... 10 

Laws Pertaining to Children and Cargo Areas .......................................................... 11 

IV. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INFORMATION AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS.... 11 

V. FOCUS GROUPS: BACKGROUND........................................................................ 11

 Site Selection ............................................................................................................. 12

Moderator’s Guide and Topics of Discussion ........................................................... 13 

Response to Existing Campaigns/Materials............................................................... 14 

VI. FOCUS GROUPS: FINDINGS ................................................................................ 15 

Overview – Pickup Truck Drivers Attitudes About Safety Belts and Safety .......... 15 

Focus Group Participants’ Attitudes- Toward Safety Measures................................ 17

Focus Group Participants’ Safety Belt Use ............................................................... 20 

Focus Group Participants’ Responses to Specific Reasons/Approaches................... 22 

Focus Group Responses to Existing Campaign Approaches – English-Speaking Group 29 

Focus Group Responses to Existing Campaign Approaches – Hispanic Group ....... 30 

Campaign Component Development – English-Speaking Group ............................. 31 

Campaign Component Development – Hispanic Group ........................................... 33 

Reasons Given for Not Wearing Their Safety Belts.................................................. 34 

VII. CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................ 35 

 Additional Issues........................................................................................................ 37 

VIII. REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 38 
xi

LIST OF TABLES 

Page

Table 1: Belt Use by Vehicle Type, 1998-2003..........................................................2 

Table 2: Safety Belt Use in 2003 In Primary and Secondary Law States by Vehicle Type.........4 

Table 3: Percentage of Vehicles Involved in Fatal Crashes by Body Type and Injury 

 Severity Within the Vehicle (FARS 2001).....................................................7 

Table 4: Percentage of Vehicles Involved in Fatal Crashes by Rollover Occurrence and Body

Type (FARS 2001)...............................................................................8 

Table 5: Percentage of Occupants in Fatal Crashes by Ejection Status and Vehicle Body Type 

(FARS 2001)......................................................................................8 

Table 6: Percentage of Occupant Fatalities in Fatal Crashes By Restraint Use and Vehicle Body

Type (FARS 2001)...............................................................................9 

Table 7: States Which Prohibit Children Riding In Cargo Area (as of 2000).......................11 

Table 8: Summary of State Pickup Truck Safety Campaigns.........................................14 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Page

Figure 1: Shoulder Belt Use by Person Type and State Enforcement Status, Pickup Trucks 

and Passenger Vehicles, Fall NOPUS 2000: Percent Estimates..........................3 

Figure 2: Shoulder Belt Use for Pickup Trucks, SUVs and Passenger Vehicles, NOPUS 2002: 

Percent Estimates................................................................................4 

Figure 3: Shoulder Belt Use by Person Type and Regions, Pickup Trucks and Passenger 

 Vehicles, Fall NOPUS 2000: Percent Estimates...........................................5 

Figure 4: Shoulder Belt Use by Person Type and Urbanization, Pickup Trucks and Passenger 

 Vehicles, NOPUS 2000: Percent Estimates................................................6 
xii

APPENDICES 

Page

APPENDIX A – 1999 FARS DATA..................................................................................... 36 

APPENDIX B – State-By-State Fatality and Educational Campaign Data........................... 43

APPENDIX C – Age and Gender in Fatal Crashes ............................................................... 46 

APPENDIX D – State-By-State Occupant Protection Laws and Enforcement Protocols..... 48

APPENDIX E – State-By-State Pickup Truck Cargo Laws And Educational Campaigns... 50 

APPENDIX F – Participant Screening Tools....................................................... 52 

APPENDIX G – Moderator’s Guide For Focus Groups Conducted With Rural, 

 Male Pickup Truck Drivers....................................................................... 55 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table A1: Vehicles in Fatal Crashes by Body Type (FARS 1999)............................ . 39 

Table A2: Fatalities by Vehicle Body Type and Restraint Use (FARS 1999) ..................... 39 

Table A3: Cargo Area Occupant Fatalities (FARS 1999) .................................................... 39 

Table A4: State-By-State Fatal Crashes: Restraint Used and Vehicle Body Type 

 (FARS 1999) ............................................................................. 40 

Table A5: State-By-State Fatal Crashes: No Restraint Used and Vehicle Body Type 

 (FARS 1999) ............................................................................ 41 

Table B1: Statewide Pickup Truck Summary....................................................................... 43 

Table B2: Governor’s Offices of Highway Safety Information Tally.................................. 45 

Table C1: Pickup Truck Occupants Involved in Fatal Crashes By Age and Gender 

 (FARS 2001)...................................................................................................... 46 

Table C2: Pickup Truck Occupants Involved in Fatal Crashes By Age and Gender 

 (FARS 1999)...................................................................................................... 46 

Table C3: Automobile Occupants Involved in Fatal Crashes By Age and Gender 

 (FARS 2001)...................................................................................................... 47 

Table C4: Automobile Occupants Involved in Fatal Crashes By Age and Gender 

 (FARS 1999)...................................................................................................... 47 

Table D1: State Safety Belt Laws (Current to November 2000) .......................................... 48 

Table E1: “Kids Aren’t Cargo” Summary Data ................................................................... 50 
1

I. INTRODUCTION 

Occupants of pickup trucks consistently have lower safety belt use rates than occupants of 

automobiles, vans and Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs). According to the 2002 National Occupant 

Protection Use Survey (NOPUS), the observed safety belt use rate among occupants of pickup 

trucks increased from 59 percent in 2000 to 69 percent in 2003. Yet this rate remains far below 

the overall national safety belt use rate of 79 percent in 2003 for all vehicles. Occupants of 

pickup trucks are at a higher risk for serious injury or death given their lower safety belt usage. 

“It has long been recognized that the proper use of occupant restraints is the simplest and most 

effective way of reducing injuries and saving lives available to drivers and passengers” 

(Solomon, Leaf, and Nissen, 2001, p.1). 

There have been a number of private and public strategies to increase safety belt use nationally. 

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) developed and promoted the 

Buckle Up America Initiative (BUA) to increase safety belt use. National safety belt use has 

increased when coordinated plans and efforts include: enactment of strong safety belt laws; 

enforcement of safety belt laws; expanded information and public education campaigns; and 

private and public partnerships. More recently, results from the Click It or Ticket campaign 

indicate that statewide safety belt use for drivers of all vehicle types increases with intensive 

enforcement of a State’s safety belt law that is well publicized with paid advertising. Click It or 

Ticket conveys the simple direct message: wear your safety belt or you will get a ticket. The 

campaign works in both primary and secondary safety belt law States. Primary safety belt laws 

permit law enforcement personnel to stop drivers who are not wearing a safety belt just as they 

can with all other traffic laws. Secondary safety belt laws require law enforcement to first stop 

the vehicle for some other violation before issuing a citation for not wearing a safety belt. 

NHTSA determined that more information was needed in order to design effective public 

information and education campaign messaging that would resonate with pickup truck drivers 

and passengers, to compliment statewide messaging efforts to reach the general population. The 

objectives of this report are to: 

• Identify safety belt use rates, fatality, and injury rates for pickup truck drivers and 

passengers; 

• Identify important characteristics of pickup truck drivers and passengers; 

• Inventory pickup truck safety belt laws and children in cargo area laws (as of 2000); 

• Review existing pickup truck public information campaigns; 

• Gather qualitative information about pickup truck drivers’ knowledge and attitudes 

about information and educational campaigns; and 

• Make suggestions for the development of future campaign messages specific to pickup 

truck drivers. 
2

II. DEFINING THE PROBLEM 

Occupant Restraint Use 

NHTSA conducts the National Occupant Protection Use Survey (NOPUS) every two years to 

gather detailed information on shoulder belt use for drivers and right-front seat passengers in the 

United States (NHTSA, 2001). While there have been steady increases in safety belt usage rates 

for all types of vehicles, pickup truck usage lags about 12 to 13 percentage points below that of 

passengers cars, vans, and SUVs as shown in Table 1 below. 

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 

Safety belt usage is also lower in secondary law enforcement States when compared with 

primary (standard) law enforcement States. As shown in Figure 1, only 48 percent of the drivers 

of pickup trucks in secondary law States were observed wearing safety belts as compared with 

69 percent of drivers of pickup trucks in primary law States. 
3

Figure 1. Shoulder Belt Use by Person Type and State Enforcement Status Pickup Trucks and 

Passenger Vehicles (Fall NOPUS 2000): Percent Estimates

71

77

64

75

81

68

61

69

48

70

74

65

55

64

42

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Shoulder Belt Usage (%)

All Occupants

Passenger Cars Only

Pickup Trucks Only

ALL

STATES 

All Occupants

Passengers

Drivers

PRIMARY

ENFORCEMENT

STATES 

All Occupants

Drivers

Passengers

SECONDARY

ENFORCEMENT

STATES 

All Occupants

Drivers

Passengers

Source: NCSA 

As shown in Figure 1, pickup truck safety belt use is lower for all States: among drivers - 61 

percent for pickup trucks versus 75 percent for passenger cars; for passengers- 55 percent for 

pickup trucks versus 61 percent for passenger vehicles. The differences in safety belt use rates 

for both passengers and drivers in pickup trucks in primary versus secondary law States is even 

more significant: belt use by pickup truck drivers in secondary law States is 48 percent versus 

69 percent for pickup truck drivers in primary law States; belt use by passengers in pickup trucks 

in secondary law States is 42 percent versus 64 percent for passengers in pickup trucks in 

primary law States. These lower safety belt use rates in secondary law States are consistent with 

the finding of lower safety belt use rates in secondary law States for both drivers and passengers 

of passenger vehicles (NOPUS 2000). 

Data Update: Safety belt usage increased in both primary law States and secondary law States. However, 

consistent with findings shown in Table 2, safety belt use by drivers and passengers of pickup trucks in both primary 

law States and secondary law States remains lower than that for other vehicle types. NOPUS 2003 data reflect the 

safety belt use rate by pickup trucks drivers in primary law States is 74 percent versus 63 percent in secondary law 

States. 
4

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 

83% 

84% 

86% 

73% 

Secondary Enforcement Law States 

 Passenger Cars 

 Vans and SUVs 

 Pickup Trucks

75% 

78% 

78% 

63% 

Source: NCSA

Figure 2. Shoulder Belt Use For Pickup Trucks, SUVs and Passenger Vehicles, 

NOPUS 2002: Percent Estimates 

80

69

82

71

83

73 71

55

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Shoulder Belt Usage (%)

PRIMARY LAW STATES Passenger Cars All Vehicle Types Vans & SUVs Pickup Trucks

SECONDARY LAW STATES Passenger Cars All Vehicle Types Vans & SUVs Pickup Trucks

Source: NCSA 

Data Update: NOPUS 2003 data reflect a similar trend: pickup truck drivers in primary law States is 74 percent 

versus 63 percent secondary law States, and 73 percent for pickup truck passengers in primary law States versus 60 

percent in secondary law States. 
5

Figure 3 shows regional safety belt use rates for both pickup truck and passenger car occupants 

for 2000. In all regions of the nation, occupants of pickup trucks have lower safety belt use rates 

when compared to occupants of passenger cars. The Northeast has the lowest regional safety 

belt use rate for pickup truck occupants; the West has the highest regional safety belt use rate for 

pickup truck occupants. 

Figure 3. Shoulder Belt Use by Person Type and Regions 

Pickup Trucks and Passenger Vehicles - Fall NOPUS 2000: Percent Estimates 

68 70 73

83

45

58 56

68 69 70

75

85

47

58 57

71

65

69 67

78

39

57

52

62

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Shoulder Belt Usage (%)

Passenger Cars

Pickup Trucks

NORTHEAST All Occupants Drivers Passengers

All Occupants

Drivers

Passengers

MIDWEST

All Occupants

Drivers

Passengers

SOUTH

All Occupants

Drivers

Passengers

WEST

Source: NCSA 

Data Update: For 2003: All Occupants Drivers Passengers

Northeast: Pickup Trucks 56% 56% 58% 

 Passenger Cars 75% 76% 70% 

Midwest: Pickup Trucks 65% 65% 65% 

 Passenger Cars 76% 77% 75% 

South: Pickup Trucks 68% 68% 65% 

 Passenger Cars 84% 85% 80% 

West: Pickup Trucks 76% 77% 73% 

 Passenger Cars 86% 88% 81% 

Source: Technical Report – “Safety Belt Use in 2003 (September 2003), National Center for Statistics and Analysis, 

DOT HS 809 646. 
6

Figure 4 shows that suburban and rural pickup truck occupants are less likely to use shoulder 

belts than are pickup truck occupants in urban areas. 

Figure 4. Shoulder Belt Use by Person Type and Urbanization 

Pickup Trucks and Passenger Vehicles, NOPUS 2000: Percent Estimates 

73 73 74

71

60

67

56 55

74 74 75 73

61

66

60

55

72 73 73

63

58

73

45

53

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Shoulder Belt Usage (%)

Passenger Cars

Pickup Trucks

ALL AREAS All Occupants Drivers Passengers

All Occupants

Drivers

Passengers

URBAN

All Occupants

Drivers

Passengers

SUBURBAN

All Occupants

Drivers

Passengers

RURAL

Source: NCSA 

Data Update: The demographic characteristics noted in 2002 reflect the following changes: 

All Occupants: Urban Suburban Rural

 Pickup Trucks 69% 69% 54% 

 Passenger Cars 72% 78% 79% 

 

Source: Safety Belt Use in 2002- Demographic Characteristics, March 2003, National Center for Statistics and 

Analysis, DOT HS 809 557. 

Fatalities 

The Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) is a census of all traffic crashes that occur 

within the United States that resulted in at least one death within 30 days of the crash. Detailed 

information about the fatal crashes such as road conditions, vehicles, and person characteristics 

is compiled and analyzed every year (www.nhtsa.dot.gov). 

FARS classification system includes the following pickup truck body types: 
7

• Compact pickup truck; 

• Standard pickup truck; 

• Pickup truck with camper; 

• Convertible pickup truck; and 

• Unknown pickup truck. 

Passenger vehicles include: 

• 2-5 door sedans; 

• Coupes; 

• Auto pickup truck (e.g., El Camino, etc.); 

• Hatchback convertibles and hard tops; 

• Station wagons; and 

• Other auto unknown type between 1991 through 1994. 

The “all other vehicles” body type category includes sport utility vehicles, vans, single unit 

trucks, truck tractors, combination trucks, commercial and school buses, motorcycles and all 

other motorized vehicles. 

During 2001, there were 57,813 vehicles involved in collisions where at least one occupant died. 

The vehicles involved in these crashes held a total of 94,526 occupants; of the vehicles in fatal 

crashes, 10,961 were pickup trucks and 27,429 were passenger cars. Table 3 shows that more 

than half (52 percent) of pickup trucks involved in fatal crashes, had an occupant that died 

compared with 66 percent of passenger cars, which had an occupant that died.

Table 3 

Percentage of Vehicles Involved in Fatal Crashes by Body Type and 

Injury Severity Within the Vehicle (FARS 2001) 

Body Type 

Injury Severity Pickup 

Trucks 

N = 10,961 

Passenger Cars 

N = 27,429 

All Other Vehicles 

N = 19,423 

Total 

N = 57,813 

No Fatality 48.3% 34.1% 52.6% 43.0% 

Fatality 51.7% 65.9% 47.4% 57.0% 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Data Update: FARS 2002 (ARF)∗

 shows: fatalities among pickup truck occupants were 52% and fatalities among 

passenger car occupants were 67%. 

 

∗

 The Annual Report File (ARF) from NCSA is subject to minor changes including additional fatalities, which will 

be reflected in the final file. 
8

Pickup trucks represent about 19 percent of household vehicles, while 63 percent of household 

vehicles are passenger cars (Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics 2000). 

Table 4 shows that pickup trucks are more likely to roll over during fatal crashes than are 

passenger cars and all other vehicles (25 percent versus 16 percent and 18 percent, respectively). 

Table 4 

Percentage of Vehicles Involved in Fatal Crashes by Rollover Occurrence and Body Type (FARS 2001) 

Body Type 

Vehicle Rollover Pickup 

Trucks 

N = 10,961 

Passenger Cars 

N = 27,429 

All Other Vehicles 

N = 19,423 

Total 

N = 57,813 

No Rollover 74.9 84.3 81.5 81.6 

First Event 9.2 4.6 7.6 6.5 

Subsequent Event 16.0 11.1 10.9 12.0 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Data Update: FARS 2002 (ARF)* shows that, of the fatal crashes among pickup trucks, 26% experienced rollovers 

versus 17% among passenger cars. 

Pickup trucks are also overrepresented in total and partial ejections as compared with other 

vehicle types. Table 5 shows that a higher proportion of pickup trucks have occupants ejected 

from the vehicle than other body types (19 percent for pickups versus 12 percent for passenger 

cars and 12 percent for all other vehicle types). 

Table 5 

Percentage of Occupants in Fatal Crashes by Ejection Status and Vehicle Body Type (FARS 2001) 

Body Type 

Occupant Ejection Pickup 

Trucks 

N = 16,693 

Passenger Cars 

N = 46,003 

All Other Vehicles 

N = 31,830 

Total 

N = 94,526 

Not Ejected 80.9 87.5 85.7 85.7 

Totally Ejected 15.0 9.8 10.7 11.0 

Partially Ejected 3.6 2.3 1.6 2.3 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Data Update: FARS 2002 (ARF)* shows fatal crashes among pickup trucks included 15% of occupants totally 

ejected and 3% partially ejected versus 10% occupants totally ejected and 2% partially ejected in passenger cars.

Table 6 shows that 71 percent of occupants who died in pickup truck crashes were not wearing 

their safety belts. In comparison, 49 percent of passenger car occupants who died in crashes 

were not using safety belts. Nationally, 127 persons died in crashes while traveling in the cargo 

area of pickup trucks. Appendix B shows detailed State-by-State fatality data. 
9

Table 6 

Percentage of Occupant Fatalities in Fatal Crashes by Restraint Use and Vehicle Body Type (FARS 2001) 

Body Type 

Restraint Use Pickup 

Trucks 

N = 6,116 

Passenger Cars 

N = 20,233 

All Other Vehicles 

N = 10,037 

Total 

N = 36,386 

None used or NA 70.6 48.5 54.8 53.9 

Restraint Used 23.0 42.6 19.8 33.0 

Other 6.5 8.9 25.5 13.1 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Data Update: FARS 2002 (ARF) shows 71% of pickup truck occupants in fatal crashes were unrestrained and 6% 

were unknown versus 49% unrestrained and 9% unknown in passenger cars. 

Gender and Other Characteristics 

Male occupants of pickup trucks between the ages of 20 and 59 years old were more likely to be 

involved in fatal collisions when compared with women occupants of pickup trucks. In 

passenger cars, with the exception of the 20 to 29 year old age group, the percent of men and 

women involved in fatal crashes were relatively the same. Detailed information about fatal 

crashes, age, and gender differences for pickup truck occupants and passenger car occupants is 

presented in Appendix C. 

Note: While the above notes the latest figures for FARS data, the NOPUS (2002) figures 

continue to reflect that safety belt use rates among male pickup truck drivers between the ages of 

16-69 remain a focal point because of their lower usage rate (63-64 percent) compared with 72 

percent within the age category of 5-15 or 8-15 and 70 and older). Source: Safety Belt Use in 

2002- Demographic Characteristics, March 2003, National Center for Statistics and Analysis, 

DOT HS 809 557. 

III. SUMMARY OF STATE SAFETY BELT LAWS AS OF NOVEMBER 2000 

Information about State safety belt laws was gathered from a variety of sources. Each State’s 

Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) driver’s manual was reviewed to determine what 

information is provided to drivers about each State’s safety belt laws (as of November 2000). 

Also, State web sites were searched for information regarding safety belt laws. In addition, State 

Governors’ Highway Safety Representatives were contacted. 
10

Exemptions in State Safety Belt Laws 

Many States allow legal exemptions to their occupant protection laws. Also, States vary 

regarding the legality of whom is responsible for passengers’ use of safety belts. The following 

exemptions are common across States: 

• A physician has certified in writing that the use of safety belts is inappropriate for the 

person, with the nature of the condition stated; 

• The person is a rural mail carrier of the US Postal Service operating a motor vehicle in 

the performance of employment, usually from first stop to last stop; 

• The person is a driver or passenger frequently stopping and leaving the motor vehicle or 

delivering property from the vehicle; 

• The person is the operator of agricultural equipment; 

• The person is a member of the emergency personnel of an emergency motor vehicle or 

a passenger in an emergency vehicle; 

• The motor vehicle the person is occupying is a bus or taxi or other vehicle for hire; and 

• The vehicle was not manufactured with safety belts. 

As of November 2000, when this project was initiated, and this task within the project was 

completed, four States had laws that were different for pickup truck occupants as compared with 

other passenger vehicles. The States were Georgia (exempts pickup trucks altogether), Indiana 

(exempts 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 (exempts trucks greater than 8,000 pounds and not considered to be a commercial 

vehicle). Additionally, New Hampshire does not currently have an adult safety belt law. 

Appendix D lists details of each State’s occupant protection laws and enforcement protocols as 

of November 2000, which is when this section of the research was completed. Again, on the 

basis of the laws at this time and other factors determined by the researcher and NHTSA, focus 

group site selection was determined in order to complete the intent of this project. 
11

Laws Pertaining to Children in Cargo Areas 

Twenty States allowed persons, regardless of 

age, to travel in the cargo area of a pickup 

truck at any time. Twenty-five States, 

shown in Table 6, 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 only 

prohibit children under certain ages, as 

shown. A common exception is to allow 

children to ride in the cargo area if all the 

seats of the pickup truck are occupied. 

Fifteen States had publicized the “Kids 

Aren’t Cargo” campaign, as of November 

2000. Appendix E lists detailed information about each State’s cargo area laws and educational 

campaigns. 

IV. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INFORMATION AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS 

Questions about public information and education programs targeted to pickup truck safety 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 targeted pickup truck occupants with 

public information, education, and/or enforcement campaigns about safety belt usage. Of these 

18 States, seven plan to develop more pickup truck campaigns in the future. Nearly half of the 

50 States have never tried nor intend to specifically target the pickup truck occupant population 

through safety campaigns. See Appendix B for more detailed information about the findings. 

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 subsequent focus group sessions and are 

described in the next section of this report. The goal was to gather information that would be 

useful to other States in persuading pickup truck drivers and their passengers to wear their safety 

belts. 

V. FOCUS GROUPS: BACKGROUND 

Eight focus groups were conducted with younger and older male pickup truck drivers who live 

and work in the rural areas of four different States. There were several objectives for conducting 

the focus groups: (1) to find out more about specific approaches and message themes that might 

convince male pickup truck drivers to use their safety belts; (2) to determine attitudes about 

allowing children to travel in the cargo area of pickup trucks; and (3) to investigate any 

differences in these issues between Hispanic and non-Hispanic pickup truck drivers. 

Table 7 

States Which Prohibit Children Riding In Cargo Area 

 (as of 2000) 

California North Carolina 

Delaware Ohio 

Florida (under age 6) Pennsylvania 

Georgia Rhode Island 

Hawaii (under age 13) South Carolina (under age 6) 

Kansas South Dakota (under age 5) 

Kentucky Tennessee 

Louisiana Texas (under age 12) 

Massachusetts Virginia 

Maryland (under age 16) Wisconsin 

Missouri Wyoming 

Nevada (under age 5) Puerto Rico 

New Jersey 
12

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 how rural, male pickup truck drivers view safety issues and safety 

belt use. 

Site Selection 

To obtain a variety of viewpoints during the focus groups, one State was chosen where safety 

belt laws covering pickup trucks differed from laws covering passenger cars. In some States, 

safety belts use is not required in pickup trucks if the driver is at least 18 years old. Both crash 

incidence and rates for pickup truck fatalities during the last several years were reviewed to 

identify States where the crash, injury, and fatality rates were high. Belt use rates were also 

reviewed. The selected States were a geographically diverse representation: Georgia, 

Michigan, Texas, and Montana. 

Three of the States (Georgia, Michigan, and Texas) had primary safety belt laws. Montana had a 

secondary safety belt law. Generally, safety belt use is higher in States with primary safety belt 

laws than in those with secondary laws: 77 percent versus 65 percent in 2000. 

Data Update: NOPUS 2003 shows 83% safety belt use in States with primary laws versus 75% in States with 

secondary laws. 

Georgia: Occupant protection laws were not the same for pickup trucks and other passenger 

vehicles; adult pickup truck occupants were not required to wear a safety belt. Although the 

State had a primary enforcement law, pickup truck occupants 18 years old and older were 

exempt. The law prohibits persons under age 18 from riding in the cargo area of pickup trucks on 

interstate highways. 

Michigan: Occupant protection laws were the same for pickup trucks and other passenger 

vehicles; all front seat occupants must wear their safety belt. Children under the age of four may 

not ride in the cargo area. Children between the ages of four and 15 may ride in the cargo area of 

a pickup truck if all other safety belts are in proper use and there are more passengers than safety 

belts. 

Montana: Occupant protection laws were the same for all motor vehicles and Montana’s 

law States that: “No driver may operate a motor vehicle upon a highway in the State of Montana 

unless each occupant of a designated seating position is wearing a properly adjusted and fastened 

safety belt.” Children may not ride in the cargo area of pickup trucks if there is available seating 

inside the vehicle; otherwise it is permitted. 

Texas: Occupant protection laws were the same for pickup trucks and other passenger 

vehicles. The driver and front seat passengers are required to wear safety belts. Children under 

12 years of age many not travel in the cargo area if the vehicle is traveling faster than 35 mph. 

Law update: In 2002, this provision was amended to prohibit children under age 18 from riding in the cargo area. 
13

The focus groups were conducted in 2001. Two groups each were conducted near: 

• Atlanta, Georgia - two in English 

• Detroit, Michigan – two in English 

• Great Falls, Montana – two in English 

• Lubbock, Texas – one in English, one in Spanish 

All participants in the eight groups were men who either lived or worked in rural areas. Two age 

groups were recruited for each city: a younger group between the ages of 18 and 27 and another 

group ages 28 and older. The majority of men drove pickup trucks most of the time. The few 

men who drove another type of passenger vehicle most of the time also had a pickup truck 

available for use in their household. 

All of the participants described themselves as wearing safety belts “sometimes,” “seldom” or 

“never.” About half of the drivers had children present in their households. A sample-screening 

tool used for recruiting can be found in Appendix F. 

Moderator’s Guide and Topics of Discussion 

The moderator’s guide included six areas of concentration for directing the discussions (see 

Appendix G). A Spanish translation of the moderator’s guide was prepared for the Spanishlanguage group. 

• Introduction 

• Attitudes towards safety measures 

• Safety belt utilization 

• Response to motivational efforts -- reasons for not wearing safety belt with five 

different approaches 

• Response to existing campaigns and properties --TV and radio spots, pamphlets, 

bumper stickers, and posters 

• Development of campaign components -- participant themes and messages 

There are a number of recurring reasons and excuses people give for not wearing safety belts. A 

1996 NHTSA study of strategies to increase safety belt use among young males in rural areas 

reported cultural and psychological barriers to developing effective safety belt campaigns 

(Bradbard et al., 1996). Three of the most common reasons people gave for not wearing their 

safety belt in the 1996 study were tested in these focus groups: 

• Pickup trucks are big and I ride higher up, so I am safer if there is a crash; 

• I’m an excellent driver and my reflexes are great, so I’m not concerned about getting in 

a crash; and 

• If I wear my safety belt and it jams, I will be trapped in my pickup truck if there is a 

crash. 
14

Existing Campaigns/Materials 

Next, materials were gathered in response to a letter sent to the 50 States, the District of 

Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam asking for copies of their public information and education 

campaigns specifically geared to occupant protection issues among pickup truck drivers. The 

type of material, message, and the State that provided the material are summarized below. More 

details are provided in Appendix H. 

Table 8 

Summary of State Pickup Truck Safety Campaigns 

Type of Material Message State 

Poster: “Don’t Be Road Kill” Ted Nugent 

 “No Excuses” 

“Kids Aren’t Cargo” 

Michigan 

New Mexico 

Illinois 

Bumper Sticker: “The Nuge Says” Michigan 

Pamphlet: “Stupid Pickup Line # 49” 

“Forgot to Tie Down One Vital Piece” 

Maryland 

Maryland 

Audio: 30 second radio safety belt spot 

60 second radio stories about crashes 

Illinois 

Oklahoma 

Video: “What’s Holding You Back Oklahoma?” 

Aftermath of Crash of a Pickup Truck 

Oklahoma 

Oklahoma 

Radio Script: “I Love My Pickup” 

“The Bet” 

Arizona 

Arizona 

The public information and education efforts, listed above, were then categorized according to 

the type of approach used. The following five types of approach “styles” were identified: 

1. Statistical Approach; 

2. Humorous Approach; 

3. Celebrity Spokesperson Approach; 

4. Medical Consequences Approach; and 

5. Consequences to Self and Others Approach. 

Some of these tactics (e.g., Consequences to Self and Others Approach) were recommended by 

Bradbard et al. (1996) and others (e.g., the Statistical Approach) have a long-standing history of 

use in educational efforts. 

Each focus group was assigned one of the three popular misconceptions identified above by 

pickup truck drivers, as reasons for not buckling up. The research team generated examples 

using each of the five approaches (statistical, humorous, celebrity spokesperson, medical 

consequences, consequences to self and others) to refute the misconception. The participants 

then discussed which approach they thought would be most effective with pickup truck drivers in 

increasing their safety belt use. The focus group members were asked not to concentrate on 

specific messages but rather the value of each of the five approaches. For example, they were not 

being asked about a specific celebrity spokesperson but rather if using a “famous” person to 

provide the information would be an effective media approach. 
15

The next exercise was for each of the focus groups to respond to existing safety belt campaign 

materials designed to target pickup truck drivers. Each group evaluated at least two videos, two 

radio spots, two radio scripts, two posters, two bumper stickers, and one pamphlet from among 

the materials listed in Table 8 above. 

The final exercise was designed to generate innovative and creative ideas from the participants 

for possible media development. 

VI. FOCUS GROUPS: FINDINGS 

The discussion of the focus group findings are grouped into the following general topics: 

• Overview of Pickup Truck Drivers’ Attitudes about Safety Belts and Safety 

• Focus Group Participants’ Attitudes Toward Safety Measures 

• Focus Group Participants’ Safety belt Use 

• Focus Group Participants’ Response to Specific Reasons and 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 

• Campaign Component Development – Hispanic Group 

• Reasons Given for Not Wearing Their Safety Belts 

Overview of Pickup Truck Drivers’ Attitudes about Safety Belts and Safety 

• Men from Georgia, Michigan, and Montana were found to be safety conscious about 

most work and household issues but not in regard to safety belt usage. Age played a 

role in safety consciousness but not in safety belt usage. For example, an older man is 

as likely as a younger man not to wear a safety belt.

• Men from Georgia, Michigan, and Montana were somewhat more likely to wear a 

safety belt in a car than in a pickup truck primarily due to the presence of family 

members and children.

• The majority of the participants in this study believed that safety belts were important 

relative to overall safety but found safety belts uncomfortable, restrictive, and an overall 

“hassle.” 

• Focus groups participants said they typically did not wear their safety belt because they 

were skeptical about the benefits to them personally. Many said they feared that instead 

of helping them, a safety belt might cause harm by trapping them in their vehicle if they 

were involved in a crash. 

• All of the men were least likely to wear their safety belts on local roads and short trips 

especially if those trips involved a lot of in and out activities. 
16

• All of the men said they would most likely buckle up during inclement weather, when 

traveling on the highway or in the mountains, and when they see law enforcement.

• All of the focus group participants were aware of safety belt laws and fines in their 

States but the law had little, if any, affect on their decision to wear safety belts each trip. 

The English-speaking Texas group, in particular, believed belt use should be an 

individual decision, expressing values of individuality and freedom, and were angry that 

the law mandates the use of safety belts.

• Men in general, but young men in particular, were not afraid of dying in a crash. They 

were more afraid of being paralyzed or losing a limb. 

• The majority of Hispanic men reported that they did not wear a safety belt. The reasons 

given were: “desiria” or a neglectful or lazy attitude; an external locus of control∗ which 

was expressed, for example, as: “God will have the ultimate say about my destiny”; 

and a lack of history or custom because they did not wear safety belts when they were 

children. 

• The Hispanic men said they were motivated to wear their safety belts out of fear of 

being caught by law enforcement and the stiff penalties that could result. 

• Most of the men from the eight focus groups prefer communication efforts that are as 

realistic as possible. Many suggested showing a man in a wheelchair next to his 

crushed vehicle saying something like: “They tell me if I had been buckled in, I’d have 

walked away from this. Instead, here I am. Don’t let this happen to you.”

• Humor in the communication pieces was not appreciated and was often viewed as 

sarcasm. All of the men viewed safety and safety belt usage seriously – even though 

they don’t wear one. The crash test dummies were often cited as being a humorous 

attempt to get people to pay attention to the issue of safety. 

• The use of numbers was questioned. Many men in each focus group were fairly cynical 

and believe numbers can be made to support anything anyone wants them to. They 

were skeptical of the quoted percentages, sometimes saying they thought they should 

have been higher or lower. If numbers are used, men responded more favorably to a 

format like “1 out of 3” rather than expressed as a percentage, such as 34 percent. 

• All of the focus groups, with the exception of the Texas Hispanic group, did not view 

celebrity spokespersons as effective. They believe celebrities are paid to say whatever 

they are asked to say, which negates their credibility. Many of the men thought it 

highly unlikely that any of the celebrities used as examples in their group would 

actually drive themselves anywhere. The participants thought the celebrities would be 

chauffeured. 

 

∗

 External locus of control is a research term meaning there is an outside source, like “god” or “a higher power,” that 

determines the outcome or destiny. 
17

• The Hispanic group, on the other hand, liked the celebrity spokesperson as one of their 

three favorite campaign approaches. 

• All of the men paid the most attention to television and radio advertising resembling 

everyday life. Images of family and children in the ads grabbed their attention -- the 

image of a wife and baby or a child blowing out candles. These images seemed to tug at 

heartstrings and made many of the men stop and think about what they have to lose. 

• The Hispanic participants were more influenced by the consequences to others for not 

wearing a safety belt. They said they were extremely family-oriented. Some said that 

when they were asked to visualize images where their children suffer because they, as 

parents, neglected to wear a safety belt, it caused a major shift in their attitude. 

• All of the men preferred campaign messages that described local crashes that occur 

when pulling out of the parking lot or on the way home from getting doughnuts. 

Typically they thought only of getting hurt in a highway crash. 

• The English-speaking men think that crashes should not be portrayed as too severe 

because the immediate impression is “It wouldn’t matter if you were wearing a seat belt 

or not in that one. You’re dead anyway.”

• In contrast, the Hispanic group in Texas reported that the Mexican newscasts they 

watch regularly depict bloody images and they do not believe they have an impact on 

viewers. They said that showing graphic consequences induces fear. These men 

thought that the “medical consequences” approach would motivate them if used to 

stress the importance of wearing safety belts. 

• The Hispanic participants indicated that there is a great need to provide traffic safety 

information and advertising in Spanish. The language barrier, or simply not fully 

comprehending English, causes some English messages to be ignored in the Hispanic 

community. 

Focus Group Participants’ Attitudes Toward Safety Measures

Participants first discussed attitudes toward safety in general. There were several factors that 

influenced whether a man considered himself safety conscious. The first was age. Older 

participants were more likely than those in their early twenties to say they were conscientious 

about all issues related to safety. Men with young children were more concerned about 

household safety than those who were single or those whose children have grown and left home. 

Men who worked in more dangerous jobs were more cognizant of general safety issues and tried 

to avoid occupational injuries. Those who had been previously injured either in a work related 

mishap or an automobile crash were more likely to be safety conscious. 
18

“At work I’m more safety conscious because I work around a power company a lot. 

There’s a lot of power there.” Detroit, Michigan - (28 and older male) 

“You’ve always got to be on the lookout or thinking that somebody doesn’t know what 

they’re doing or is not paying attention. If you do that, then you’re ahead of the gameespecially now because the stress level has increased with everything that’s going on. 

You have people working a lot more hours. They’re tired. You’ve got to pay attention.” 

Atlanta, Georgia - (28 and older male) 

“I think I’ve become a lot more safe or at least conscious of it after having children. I 

don’t really think about dying, but then once you think about leaving your children or 

something like that, it makes you think about the things I used to do.” 

Great Falls, Montana - (28 and older male) 

Men in all the age groups and focus group locations said they needed to pay more attention to 

safety issues such as adhering to the speed limit, not driving home after drinking a few beers, 

using turn signals when changing lanes to alert other drivers of their intentions, avoiding drivers 

talking on cell phones, not tailgating, wearing protective clothing as per OSHA restrictions, and 

wearing safety belts. 

The Hispanic men, in contrast, said they did not consider themselves safety conscious. They 

indicated that safety is not a concept strongly reinforced in their socialization. 

While the majority of men believed that safety belts were important relative to their safety and 

agreed that safety belts save lives and have a purpose, overall, participants from all groups found 

safety belts “uncomfortable,” “restrictive,” and in the extreme, “a violation of a first amendment 

right.” The general consensus among the men was that once you reach a certain age, you’re 

responsible for yourself. They saw the law as placing limits on their freedom of choice. One 

participant summed it up this way: 

“I think if you’re responsible enough to drive a car, you should be responsible enough to 

make the decision whether nor not to wear a seat belt.” 

They held a skeptical view regarding the usefulness of safety belts and were especially worried 

about becoming trapped in their vehicle in case of a crash. Some participants felt that safety 

laws are inconsistent. For example, they did not understand why motorcycle riders were not 

required by law in some States to wear helmets, but motorists must wear a safety belt. 

“Personally, I didn’t like it when the law came out. As a grown person, I just about think 

it was unconstitutional to mandate to say you have to wear a seat belt because if you get 

injured or don’t get injured, it’s your own red wagon. You’re not affecting anyone else on 

the road.” Atlanta, Georgia - (28 and older male) 
19

“Once you’re an adult, you should make your own choice. They don’t have a helmet law 

in Montana for a motorcycle. That’s about the most ridiculous thing I think I’ve ever 

heard. They make you wear a seat belt but not a helmet.” 

Great Falls, Montana - (28 and older male) 

“They’re very restrictive. It makes you feel like you’re just confined and you can’t do 

anything. I know in my truck, the seat belt presses in tight. You try to move it a little bit, 

and it locks in. You can’t even lean forward or anything.” 

Atlanta, Georgia - (18-27 year old male) 

“I think seat belts are a waste of time. I’m in agriculture. I never use it because I’m in 

and out all day. I’m 55 years old. I went for 40 years without using them. They’re just in 

the way. Every time you put it on, you have to get out and unhook it. Then you get those 

ones that are going automatically and wrap around your neck. They’re just basically a 

waste of time for me.” Great Falls, Montana – (28 and older male) 

“I consider myself an adult. If I don’t want to wear my seat belt, then I shouldn’t have to. 

They shouldn’t be able to tell me: ‘You have to wear your seat belt or we’re going to fine 

you.’ I think it’s a money issue, just another way for them to make some money at $50 a 

pop.” Detroit, Michigan - (18-27 year old male) 
20

Focus Group Participants’ Safety Belt Use 

Many of the men indicated they wore a safety belt when driving a car because of the presence 

of other family members – children, wives, siblings, mothers, and girlfriends. Several felt they 

“had” to buckle up to set a good example. But, in their pickup trucks, few said they wore their 

safety belt. They believed they were safer in their truck due to its sheer size. In addition, most 

of the time they are alone in their pickup truck and thus did not feel they needed to answer to 

anyone. 

“Trucks are better vehicles. I was in a wreck...we drilled the back of his car...it totaled 

out his car. We had to replace our front bumper and that was that.” 

Atlanta, Georgia - (18-27 year old male) 

“Trucks are bigger. You don’t get hurt. You feel a little bit safer driving a truck.” 

Detroit, Michigan - (18-27 year old male) 

“Trucks are bigger, more sturdier vehicles. On impact, there’s more crush room.” 

Atlanta, Georgia - (18-27 year old male) 

The majority of the Hispanic men also indicated they felt quite secure in the trucks they drive. 

They did say, however, that they wore their safety belts when they made trips away from their 

hometown, and on long, unfamiliar trips. They saw safety belts as an inconvenience on short 

local trips. They believed in a strong external locus of control about their destiny (this means the 

belief that consequences to something are beyond or external to themselves and out of their 

control): 

“Uno ariesga y Dios dira.” (“One takes a risk but it is up to God to decide...”) 

The English-speaking groups, regardless of age, said they typically wore their safety belts when 

the weather was icy, snowy, foggy, rainy, or when they were traveling in the mountains. They 

also reported that they wore their safety belts on long journeys, on interstates, in heavy traffic, 

and near large cities where they associate potentially hazardous situations and careless or 

dangerous drivers. Some of the men said that they “grab for them if they see a cop” and when 

riding as a passenger in someone else’s vehicle. Most wore safety belts when children got in 

their vehicle, just for practice and to teach the kids that it’s the right thing to do. 

All of the participants were aware that their State had a law regarding the use of safety belts. 

The following reflects their understanding of the laws. Most knew the specifics of these laws as 

it applied to them. Some were a little sketchy on the details. There was discussion, for instance, 

as to the laws regarding back seat passengers, specifically who had to be buckled – under 16 

years old, under 18 years old, or all passengers. In Michigan, most believed all passengers were 

supposed to wear a safety belt. In Georgia, they knew safety belts were mandatory in cars but 

not in pickup trucks. In Montana, they knew the lap belt was required and that people older than 

65 did not have to be belted. In addition to requiring safety belt usage of all persons in the 

vehicle, passengers in Montana under 18 years old are the driver’s responsibility. 
21

The Hispanic men from Texas also said they were well aware of the safety belt laws for cars and 

trucks. They thought the law was a good idea but not the “stiff fines.” One law that they were 

unclear about was whether passengers could ride in the cargo area of a pickup truck. They said 

they did not feel insecure or worried taking passengers in the pickup truck bed, in part because 

they remember traveling this way as children. They do not, however, put their own children in 

the cargo area and seldom see others ride this way in the United States. They say that it is a 

practice used only on occasion; for example, if someone required a ride because their car was not 

working and they urgently needed to get somewhere. Participants in Georgia believed that if you 

were older than 18 and not riding on the interstate it would be okay to ride in the cargo area and 

“people do it all the time.” Montana participants thought that it was legal if the passengers in the 

cargo area were sitting down and the driver did not go on the interstate. In Michigan, men knew 

riding in the back of a pickup truck was illegal, but many saw it “all the time.” The Englishspeaking Texas participants believed that it is very dangerous to ride as a passenger in the cargo 

area but believes it was more dangerous to do so in the city than in the fields. In any event, they 

thought that common sense, rather than the law, should dictate when to ride in the back of a 

pickup truck. 

When the men were asked to describe who they believed were MOST likely to wear safety belts 

they cited the following: kids, parents, women, the disabled, crash survivors, drunks, owners of 

new cars, and health or safety conscious individuals. On the other hand, they cited the following 

as LEAST likely to wear a safety belt: younger, single, men, tall, short, African Americans, 

delivery and construction workers, and truck drivers. 

The Hispanic group of men said they knew they should wear their safety belts but they did not 

wear them because they: 

• Forgot; 

• Were neglectful (“Tengo desiria”); 

• Have not been in a crash themselves so they did not see how safety belts would help; 

• Were “in control,” “I know the area in which I drive. I even know the policemen, when 

and where they will stand.” 

All of the Hispanic men said that the issue of masculine identity had nothing to do with why they 

did not wear their safety belts. They did not consider themselves more macho by not wearing a 

safety belt; they remained ambivalent about wearing the safety belt. For example, on the one 

hand, they acknowledged the value of safety belts in a rollover crash or in preventing them from 

being ejected from their vehicle in any kind of crash. On the other hand, they mistrusted the 

safety belt for fear of being trapped inside after a crash or trapped inside in the case of a fire. 

One participant mentioned his fear of being unable to unlatch the belt if his hands were broken as 

a result of the crash. 

Participants from all eight groups nearly unanimously agreed on one thing: children need to 

wear safety belts. In fact, most thought laws for everyone under the age of 18 were justified 
22

because young children and teenagers “need to be protected from their own ignorance.” Most, 

however, did not insist that other adults wear a safety belt in their vehicle.

“I honestly don’t care if anybody else in the rest of the car – unless they are kids, kids get 

belted in period. Other than that, if someone wants to sit next to me or behind me and 

don’t wear it, that doesn’t bother me. It’s up to them to make their own decision. I feel 

that I’m not driving reckless to where I’m going to cause any of these things to happen. 

That still can happen but not because I’m driving crazy.” 

Detroit, Michigan - (28 and older male) 

Most of the men did not wear safety belts as a child, or if they did it was on an irregular basis. 

“My mom was strict about us being buckled, my dad, he didn’t care. I used to sit on the 

arm rest so I could see better when he was driving.” 

Great Falls, Montana - (18-27 year old male) 

For older participants, most of the cars that they grew up with did not have safety belts in them. 

“I think cars before 1965 didn’t have belts.” 

“I just never got in the habit.” Lubbock, Texas - (28 and older male) 

Focus Group Participants’ Responses to Specific Reasons 

For Not Wearing Safety Belts and Approaches 

As discussed on page 14), a previous NHTSA study (Bradbard et al., 1996) identified three 

common reasons that people give for not wearing their safety belts in pickup trucks. Because 

there is not enough time during a typical focus group to discuss each of these three reasons, it 

was decided that each city would be randomly assigned a reason. These assignments are shown 

below: 

City / State Reason

Detroit, Michigan “Pickup trucks are big and you ride higher up so you are safer...” 

Great Falls, Montana “If I wear my seat belt and it jams, I will be trapped ....” 

Atlanta, Georgia “I’m an excellent driver and my reflexes are great ....” 

Lubbock, Texas “I’m an excellent driver and my reflexes are great ....” 

Also, as discussed on page 14, five specific approaches for presenting public information and 

education (PI&E) materials were identified: 
23

• Statistical Approach 

• Humorous Approach 

• Celebrity Approach 

• Medical Consequences 

• Consequences to Self and Others Approach 

Each focus group discussed these five approaches for presenting PI&E materials as it related to 

their assigned reason for not wearing safety belts. 

Detroit, Michigan: 

Reason – “Pickup Trucks are Big” 

Discussion - The five approaches were applied to: “Pickup trucks are big and you ride higher up, 

so you are safer if there is a crash.” 

1. Statistical Approach 

The majority of the Detroit men referred to this as “the numbers game” and overall, did not care 

for this approach. The general opinion was that you could make numbers say anything you want 

them to say. The skeptics in both groups did not trust these, or any quoted statistics, to be 

truthful. Most wanted to know where the numbers came from. Some were surprised the numbers 

were not larger. Others thought the numbers should be smaller. Regardless, “that’s 34 percent 

of other people, that’s not me” was a common philosophy, especially among younger men. 

Some wanted to know how many people lived or died after being ejected. Most agreed, 

however, that saying “1 out of 3 people...” rather than 34 percent makes the number more 

understandable to them. A few men did not believe this approach because they thought, “the 

airbag would stop them.” Airbags seem to provide a sense of security, sometimes a false sense 

of security, for drivers regardless of age. 

2. Humorous Approach 

The Detroit participants saw this approach as being more sarcastic than funny. Most of the men 

do not buy this argument and found it “ridiculous” or “retarded.” For the younger men, it doesn’t 

provide enough information. 

“So what if he hits the concrete wall? Did he get hurt? Did he just have to hold onto 

his steering wheel tight? Where are you going with this?” 

Older men did not believe it either. 

“I don’t buy this whole thing we can see better any more. Before all these SUV’s 

started coming and before pickup trucks got trendy, yes, you could see the whole 

road. But now, chances are you’re behind some 30-foot Suburban!” 
24

3. Celebrity Approach 

This approach received a mixed response. “So what” was the typical reaction from the younger 

men. Another common response was, “He got a lot of money for doing that commercial.” The 

mistrust and lack of credibility associated with spokespeople, regardless of who they are, was 

evident here. 

They’re getting as much as we make in six months for a two-minute 

commercial...I’m not going to wear a seat belt because of that!” 

Older men could see the potential in this approach but only if there were a multitude of 

celebrities used like in the “Got Milk?” ads. Some in this age group were skeptical too. 

He’s lying. He doesn’t ALWAYS buckle up every time he goes to a game. 

He’s as big a liar as all the rest of us. We all cheat now and then. 

Let’s face it; let’s really be honest. I’ll be the first one.” 

4. Medical Consequences Approach 

This approach was also considered sarcastic. Older men thought: 

“This might appeal to the MTV generation because it 

 kind of fits in with their mentality in a way.” 

Neither younger nor older men cared for this approach, mainly because of the terms ‘road kill’ 

and ‘great big windshield.’ They felt that it lacks seriousness. 

5. Consequences to Self and Others Approach 

This approach would appeal to older men more IF the person chosen for the ad was an actual 

survivor of a crash. 

“Like a Christopher Reeve type. Perhaps that might make an impression 

on someone, as long as you don’t become sarcastic with it and treat 

the public like they’re only a half a year old.” 

Younger men really took offense to this approach. Some found it offensive to draw the analogy 

between the great big pickup truck and the not-so-big wheelchair. Others expressed disbelief that 

somebody could survive a crash with a tractor-trailer even when wearing a safety belt. 

Detroit focus group participants preferred the statistical approach when the percentages were 

changed to 1 in 3 to make the presentation more understandable. They liked it because it was 

viewed as the most serious of the five approaches. Crashes are no laughing matter. 

“It shouldn’t be funny. If there’s fatalities involved, it’s not really a 
25

 funny matter. Who is going to listen to you if you’re talking 

 to them sarcastically, like half these sentences here?”

The groups did not rule out humor altogether. Nearly all were able to recall the crash test 

dummies and found them to be funny and memorable. Other advertising remembered was the 

“Click It or Ticket” campaign on roadside signs and the billboards along the roadway that says, 

“Buckle Up, It’s The Law.” 

Great Falls, Montana: 

Reason – “Could Be Trapped” 

Discussion – The five approaches were applied to: “If I wear my seat belt and it jams, I will be 

trapped in my pickup truck if there is a crash.” 

1. Statistical Approach 

About half of the participants in the two Great Falls focus groups found this reason for not 

buckling up to be believable. Some said that since safety belts are mechanical they could have a 

tendency not to work in all situations. But they were not sure whether to believe the statistical 

approach because several of the men had never heard of safety belts jamming and none shared 

that concern. A few men discredited the statement because law enforcement said it. A typical 

response was: 

“I have no clue so I’ll believe them I guess.”

2. The Humorous Approach 

The participants did not find this approach humorous, if anything they thought it was bad humor. 

According to two young pickup truck drivers- 

“This guy is screwed! I don’t think anyone would say that.” 

“Maybe you could joke about it after if you were in that position.” 

3. Celebrity Approach 

The men from Montana did not think using Randy Travis as a spokesperson would work there. 

They too were cynical and felt that he was making the statement for the money. 

“He rides around on a big tour bus. Do you think he wears a seat belt? I don’t think 

a spokesperson in general (works). I’m not affected. Like I don’t go out and buy 

shoes because Michael Jordon wears those. To me, that kind of stuff doesn’t work.” 
26

4. Medical Consequences Approach 

Most of the men thought the excuse given for not wearing a safety belt sounded like a poor 

excuse. Two older participants commented that this made no sense to them because in all their 

years of driving and seeing bad crashes, they had never seen anyone who was buckled up and 

died (author’s note-apparent misunderstanding with this approach because the scripted example 

was intended to mean that the driver was not wearing their safety belt). 

5. Consequences to Self and Others Approach 

Most participants believed that “reality” works best. However, several younger men in their 

twenties said death is not something they fear. What they do fear is becoming paralyzed or losing 

a leg or an arm. 

Atlanta, Georgia: 

Reason – “ I am a Good Driver” 

Discussion - The five approaches were applied to: “I’m an excellent driver and my reflexes are 

great, so I’m not concerned about getting in a crash.” 

Overall, participants felt this theme was a little too cocky. Two younger men said: 

(This driver) “Thinks more highly of himself than he ought to.” 

“Somebody who would say that is a complete dumb___.” 

Older men took a different outlook but came to the same conclusion: 

“We could be quick but not quick enough. They always say to drive for the 

next person.” You have to worry about everybody else on the road.” 

1. Statistical Approach 

Young and old alike agreed wholeheartedly with this statement, but suggested that it is other 

people who are misjudging their own driving abilities. 

“Who is going to rate themselves below average?” 

“A lot of people overrate their driving skills.” 

Both age groups found this approach hard to believe. Older drivers in particular thought using 

statistics skewed the statement because they believe that the only statistics that are used are the 

ones that help “the cause.” One participant thought the only way to make this statement 

believable would be to say: 

“... 99.8 percent of accidents are caused by the 83 percent of drivers 

that rate themselves well above average or above average...” 
27

2. Humorous Approach 

Young pickup truck drivers found the statement arrogant. 

“If he was such a good driver, why didn’t he 

 see the guy coming at him and get out of the way?” 

Older drivers did not believe the statement. 

“First of all, you wouldn’t go through your windshield if you 

got hit from the rear. You’d go back into the bed of the truck 

 initially, you’d go backward before you went forward.”

Both age groups thought the driver was passing the buck, saying in effect, I’m glad it’s his fault. 

3. Celebrity Approach 

The celebrity spokesperson approach using Sammy Sosa in Atlanta was a little more effective 

than Cal Ripken, Jr. was in Detroit. Older drivers could relate to Sammy Sosa. His character was 

untarnished and they could relate to the play on words of ‘quick behind the wheel and quick at 

bat’. In fact, they felt that this approach would work with any spokesperson. 

“It could be anybody who shows by their actions that they 

 respect others and it’s not do as I say but do as I do.” 

Younger men, on the other hand, did not believe the “celebrity thing.” 

“How often do you think Sammy Sosa drives ---- You know he’s got a chauffeur!”

“Most people know if he’s on TV making that statement, 

he’s getting some kind of gratuity for it.” 

4. Medical Consequences Approach 

The medical consequences approach did not make sense to either age group of pickup truck 

drivers. They thought it sounded too one-sided. For the younger men, the person with the smaller 

vehicle wants you to take his side and chances are the person driving that vehicle was probably 

at fault. For older men, it meant the situation got away from the driver of the smaller truck and 

his reaction time was not right. 
28

5. Consequences to Self and Others Approach 

Participants appreciated this approach because they were able to relate to it. They called it “real 

life” and said the wheelchair was very graphic. In general, the Atlanta participants remembered 

and criticized the “Buckle Up, It’s the Law” roadside campaign. Several men did not find the ad 

effective. 

“Those ___ you off because, it’s like, who wants to be told ‘Hey you’re 38, 39, 40 

years old and you are going to do this. You’re a rational thinking adult-- you should 

have a choice to make your own decisions.” 

For some, the marketing that has appealed to kids has worked because the kids become the focus 

rather than the adult. 

“...the seat belt police, they won’t let me drive unless I have it on. 

It’s easier to put it on than listen to them.” 

Lubbock, Texas: 

Reason – “I am a Good Driver” 

Discussion - The five approaches were applied to: “I’m an excellent driver and my reflexes are 

great so I’m not concerned about getting in a crash.” 

1. Statistical Approach 

The men in the English-speaking group agreed that in order to strengthen the statistical approach, 

local rather than national statistics should be provided along with more specific information such 

as the speed at which the driver, not wearing the safety belt, was traveling. In general, they did 

not trust the statistical information. 

The Hispanic men did not find the statistical approach to be particularly good primarily because 

of a general mistrust of statistics in general. They consider statistics to be misleading and 

irrelevant. One exception that could make a statistical approach viable would be if the numbers 

used were truly reflective their own local area. 

2. Humorous Approach 

The English-speaking group found the humorous approach distasteful. Participants thought the 

subject matter was too serious to be paired with humor. They also voiced concern regarding 

children who might take the humor literally, which they thought would be counterproductive. 

The Spanish-speaking men liked this approach the least of all five approaches. They agreed that 

the theme is too serious and eliciting laughter is “completely inappropriate and immoral.” They 

said that humor denies the seriousness of the message. 
29

3. Celebrity Approach 

The focus group participants mistrusted celebrities as honest representatives of commercial 

products and concepts. They did not believe that they would convince anyone of their message. 

In any event, if a spokesperson were used, they felt that civil leaders rather than movie stars 

should deliver the message. The Hispanic pickup truck drivers, however, generally liked the 

celebrity spokesperson approach. They said they would feel motivated to wear their safety belt if 

they believed that the spokesperson were credible. Three such individuals mentioned by some in 

the Hispanic group were Ricardo Montalban, Vincente Fernandes, and Sammy Sosa. 

4. Medical Consequences Approach 

The men in this focus group said that the fear factor worked for them. They also said that the 

impact of such an approach would be short lived and that, if shown over and over again, the 

effectiveness of the messages would wear off. 

The Hispanic men said that while they are accustomed to viewing gory real-life images in the 

Mexican media, they have not been desensitized to the power of such images and find them 

highly effective. They reported that images of collision victims would act as a great motivating 

factor and specifically recommended the approach for Latinos. 

5. Consequences to Self and Others Approach 

This group of Texans said that the consequences to self and others approach had the most impact 

on them and was their favorite theme. Their reaction to what they read and discussion for this 

approach illustrated for them pain and harm to their family members. This resulted in strong 

emotions of sadness and feelings of guilt. 

The Hispanic group agreed that the consequences to self and others approach had the most 

impact on them too. They appreciated the effectiveness of mental images relating to family. 

When asked to imagine their own children hurt in a collision as a result of their neglect by not 

requiring the children to wear their safety belts, they felt devastated. The men said that the reason 

this approach is so effective is that it highlights an essential value of Hispanic culture, namely 

the commitment to the welfare of the family. The message, therefore, speaks to them in a very 

direct and emotional way. 

Focus Group Responses to Existing Campaign Approaches – English-Speaking Group 

Four television videos, six radio transcripts, two brochures, and three posters were shown to the 

focus group participants for discussion. The television safety belt campaigns were developed in 

Oklahoma to encourage safety belt use. Three were targeted to both adults and youth. Each 

video showed the aftermath of a vehicle crash and the camera zoomed in on the blinking and 

chiming safety belt symbol on the instrument panel. The vehicles are severely damaged and 
30

there is no sign of life. One of the campaigns shows a pickup truck. Another campaign targets 

children to convince them to convince their parents to wear safety belts. 

The focus groups also listened to three 60-second radio spots from Oklahoma and three Ted 

Nugent radio campaigns from Illinois. Two brochures and three posters were shown from the 

State of Maryland.

The reality safety belt campaigns from Oklahoma did the best job of garnering attention and 

generating recall and playback. They depict everyday driving scenarios and got an emotional 

reaction, even among those who did not have children. All have mothers or sisters and most 

expressed the hope of having their own children in the future. They said that the flashback scenes 

were a vivid reminder that “you can be here today and gone tomorrow.” Because most 

respondents felt they could relate to these situations that strengthened their appeal. The radio 

scenarios involving short distances generated the most interest because men said it was in these 

situations that they think nothing negative will ever happen. 

Participants responded favorably to Ted Nugent in one group and a few from a second group. 

Most think he is an “over-the-hill rock and roller” who has lived his life in the fast lane and, 

therefore, is not a credible spokesperson for safety issues. Only a couple of men in Montana 

truly like his radio spots because they believe they understand what he stands for. One said, 

“Ted tells it like it is!” 

The Texas English-speaking group was asked to recall ads they have seen on television about 

safety belt use. The two that they mentioned were billboards and road signs: “Buckle Up – It’s 

the Law” and the Vince and Larry crash dummies', “Don’t be a dummy...wear your seat belt.” 

They believed that these particular messages went against their philosophy of freedom of choice 

of whether to wear a safety belt or not. Some said that these slogans tend to cause them to rebel 

and ignore the law. They felt that the images of actual car crashes and what happens to people in 

such instances would be far more effective in promoting safety belt use than the crash dummies. 

They did not like the information on children riding in the bed of pickup trucks and the 

accompanying tagline –“kids are not cargo.” These men thought that some of the campaigns, 

because they ignored other dangers such as cell phones, and driving after drinking, lacked 

credibility, and were weak. They thought the brochures were too hard to read, contained too 

much information and too many words, and should be simpler. 

Focus Group Responses to Existing Campaign Approaches – Hispanic Group 

The men from this focus group were asked about other campaigns they could recall. Some 

remembered information about vehicle and passenger safety, particularly a commercial featuring 

the crash test dummies that they had seen in automobile dealerships. Others recalled seeing 

posters and handouts at their children’s schools highlighting the consequences of not wearing a 

safety belt. Many have seen billboards located in the outskirts of towns reminding them to use 
31

their safety belts--especially when traveling with family members. They said that the crash 

dummies and billboards had an impact on them. 

Hispanic participants suggested that messages should be delivered in Spanish and should reflect 

their culture. They thought that messages developed for English-speaking audiences addressed 

Hispanics who are already acculturated. They also felt that an approach that would have an 

impact on them would be one in which a smashed car is brought to local schools for students to 

see the results of a severe crash directly. They suggested that seeing and touching the vehicle, 

and learning of the fate of the occupants, who had not been wearing safety belts while in that 

same car, would serve as a powerful educational tool. They thought that the brochure was 

powerful, specifically the picture of a woman who was grieving the death of her husband who 

had died in a pickup truck crash. 

In general, the Hispanic group reacted favorably to the safety belt campaign material they were 

shown. They saw the material as a motivating tool to increase safety belt use. They did express 

concern, however, that all of the campaigns were in English and had to be translated by the focus 

group moderator. Without the translation, many said that the messages would have had little 

impact on them or they may have ignored them altogether. 

Campaign Component Development – English-Speaking Groups 

After reviewing current safety belt campaigns, the men were put in charge of developing a 

message designed to get people like themselves to buckle up more often. A few said they were 

doubtful that anything except excessive fines would get them to change their habits. 

“We have superman syndrome, it will never happen to me.” 

In general, however, participants liked reality-based efforts, saying the ads should be: 

“...blunt, factual”...“not a big production”“...more like a home video” 

It is important that the scenes: 

“... look real, not fake or staged” 

“The accidents can’t be so bad that they look like even if 

you were wearing your seat belt you’d be dead anyway.” 

The theme should be family oriented: 

“... something that everybody could identify with, not celebrities and stuff, 

just stuff everyone has in common, like the donuts one we heard.” 

Some of the pickup truck drivers want to use testimonials. They would like to see someone next 

to the crashed vehicle saying: 
32

“I wasn’t wearing my seat belt the day this happened, and look what it did to me. 

Here there would be a graphic and show people in a wheelchair or people 

missing an arm or leg. Then show another crash scene, maybe worse than the first 

but in this scene the driver was belted and was able to walk away.” 

One person described his most vivid crash scene memory and suggested it may not be necessary 

to show graphic, gory detail. He had just come upon a crash and could tell it was a bad one not 

by the victims but based on the look on the paramedics’ and firefighters’ faces. 

“It was a sobering experience. You knew in an instant whoever it was didn’t make it.” 

Another man suggested using the scene from the movie “Remember the Titans” 

“...where the star football player went tearing out of town after the big 

game and got drilled by a flatbed truck and never could walk again.” 

It was further suggested that the messages be short. 

“The radio message we heard was good but too long. I’d probably change stations. 

 But if you made it shorter and said something like ‘two things could happen – 

 One you live, two you die’. People will listen to that.” 

Others agreed, especially the younger men who said: 

“With video games and stuff today, kids’ attention span is like 20 seconds.” 

The actual radio message mentioned above was about a vehicle crash and the audience was on 

the receiving end of a phone call about the crash. It did tell the listeners that two things could 

happen and then went on to give two somewhat detailed scenarios where in one event the friend 

or loved one was not wearing their safety belt. In that scenario, the person died. In the second 

scenario the person was wearing their safety belt and lived, but called to say they would be late. 

Several people from each focus group liked the slogan from Oklahoma, “What’s holding you 

back” because it got the point of safety belts across without excessive emphasis on ‘you must 

wear a seat belt’. 

Others suggested mimicking drunk driving ads that show a regular person doing something 

ordinary and at the end of the clip it says “killed by a drunk driver on such and such date.” In this 

case the ad ends with “Kristy, age 19 killed in a car accident driving 30 miles per hour on a dry 

sunny day. No seat belt.” This scene is particularly powerful because no one thinks they are 

going to die in a 30 mph crash and people assume crashes are more likely to occur at night or in 

bad weather. 
33

A few group members were impressed with the factual information contained in the Maryland 

brochure even though they do not like the idea of using a brochure to deliver information. 

“The fact that you are fourteen times more likely to receive paralyzing injuries if you’re 

thrown from a truck – I didn’t know that. People know that you’re more likely to die – but 

what’s a seat belt do – it keeps you in that truck and not paralyzed.” 

The young men participating in these focus groups said they do not fear dying, they fear being 

paralyzed or maimed. 

The English-speaking Lubbock group developed several themes that they would use to create 

messages to support safety belt use. They would use gory details that would include real pictures 

of actual people in the aftermath of a truck collision. They would also use specific statistics on 

crashes such as speed and fatalities of those wearing versus not searing safety belts at the time of 

the collision. The data would correspond to their local region. The men would use trusted 

community leaders and not a celebrity spokesperson to deliver the message. 

Information about why children should not ride in the cargo area of pickup trucks should be 

included in some of the safety belt messages. They would promote the theme of safety belt use 

and families and use the consequences to self and others approach. A particularly effective image 

mentioned was a woman pushing the wheelchair of her husband as the consequence of being 

ejected from his pickup truck during a crash. 

The men suggested using images of real, local crashes in which people could recognize the 

streets of their town. This would increase understanding of the crash as a real and potential 

threat in their everyday lives. They would also include testimonials of real people whom they 

know and use this kind of script: 

“I just saw a father of one of my son’s friends in a wheelchair in the ballpark. 

I learned that this was the consequence of an accident where he hadn’t been 

wearing his seat belt. It made me feel very sad. I figured that if it 

could happen to him, it could happen to any of us.” 

Campaign Component Development - Hispanic Group 

The pickup truck drivers in this group recommended several messages and themes to convince 

other Hispanics to use their safety belts. They suggested emphasizing the negative consequences 

to family member in the event of a crash to them. They would relay a story about a relative who 

died in a car crash due to his or her refusal to wear a safety belt, along with the sorrow it brought 

to the rest of the family. They felt that that scenario would be an extremely effective campaign 

component. 

Campaigns must be conducted in Spanish and should target the teenage audience for some of the 

messages. The men would present raw graphic images with blood in order to motivate Hispanics 
34

to wear their safety belts. They would use credible spokespersons and mentioned: Ricardo 

Montalban, Sammy Sosa, Vicente Fernandez, and local Lubbock leaders such as Ramon Agala, 

Carmelo Reyna, and Judge Medina. The campaigns should be shown on Spanish language 

television stations. They would also feature newsletters and posters in stores, supermarkets, 

churches, movie theatres, and schools. 

Reasons Given for Not Wearing Their Safety Belts 

The Detroit, Atlanta and Great Falls participants were polled at the end of the sessions (both 

Texas groups ran long and did not provide this information). They were asked to give the main 

reasons they do not wear their safety belts and to describe the time and places where they do not 

wear them. Of the 50 anonymous responses, half (25) gave behavioral reasons for not wearing 

their safety belt such as not remembering, laziness, not wanting to take the time or habit related. 

Another 40 percent (20) gave reasons that had to do with comfort. Of the 41 responses to the 

second question, 31 said they did not buckle up on short drives, on local roads, and in the 

neighborhood. 

Main Reason for Not Wearing Your Safety Belt

 Don’t think or remember to put on 13 

 Uncomfortable 12 

 Habit or bad habit 6 

 Confining or restrictive or too tight 5 

 In a hurry, no time 4 

 Don’t like them 3 

 Hassle, bothersome 3 

 Lazy, don’t care 2 

 Trucks are safer than cars 1 

 Dirty from farm use 1 

Times or Places You Don’t Wear Safety Belt

 Local road, neighborhood 23 

 Short distances 8 

 Everywhere I drive 3 

 On way to work 3 

 In a hurry, in and out 2 

 Alone 1 

 Nice weather 1 
35

VII. CONCLUSIONS

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. The Spanish-speaking men, 

more often than not, expressed similar reasons for not wearing their safety belts. Nearly all of 

the participants agreed on the best approaches and elements for educational and enforcement 

campaign development to encourage pickup truck drivers to wear their safety belts. 

The findings of the current report parallel the 1996 NHTSA study of young male pickup truck 

drivers ages 16-26 in rural areas of Texas and Kentucky (Bradbard, et al., 1996). A number of 

concerns about safety belt use remain the same: 

• More concerned with their actions as they affect people to whom they feel close; 

• Messages should be brief and simply stated; 

• Messages should show direct consequences to non-user; 

• There are common misconceptions and misinformation about safety belt effectiveness;. 

• Messages about death should focus on family and other loved ones left behind; 

• Messages about occupant injuries should focus on loss of limb or paralysis and being 

confined to a wheelchair; 

• Appeals should be made relating to family values; and 

• Multi-media approach was preferred (radio, TV, print), but not a deluge of information. 

In the current study there was no doubt that male pickup trucks drivers consider the subject of 

safety belt use to be serious and on an intellectual level they understand that there are safety 

advantages. They want their children to wear them and understand why their wife, mother, 

girlfriend, and other loved ones wear their safety belts and are glad they do. Perhaps that is why 

there was nearly complete agreement about not using humor in the message. They just don’t find 

the subject to be something to joke about and showed concern about children misinterpreting the 

seriousness of the issue. This was true across age and ethic groups. 

For many men, there was an element in play that had nothing to do with understanding the 

problem and potential consequences of not wearing a safety belt. Many did not believe that it 

was the government’s right or responsibility to mandate safety belt usage. Two earlier NHTSA 

studies using focus groups had similar findings: “Program Strategies For Increasing Safety Belt 

Usage in Rural Areas” and “Increasing Seat Belt Use Among Part Time Users: Messages and 

Strategies.” Both studies found that issues of personal control, independence, and freedom of 

choice were frequently mentioned as reasons for not wearing a safety belt. 

Nearly all of the participants in the current study pointed out inconsistencies with State laws in 

other highway safety areas. Some 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 not only 
36

ignoring the safety belt law but also as a reason why the government should not mandate safety 

belt use. 

Whether young or old, the men were not impressed with statistical facts as a motivator to 

increase safety belt use. There was a general consensus that numbers can be used to prove 

whatever point one chooses to make, at least one individual was impressed with facts about 

rollover crashes and ejection. 

There is an apparent lack of understanding about airbags. Some pickup truck drivers fail to see 

the need to wear their safety belts in the presence of an airbag. Great strides have been made 

with regard to informing the general motoring public about the dangers of allowing infants, 

babies, toddlers and children under age twelve to ride in the front seat where they could be 

exposed to the impact of an activated airbag. Similar campaigns should be developed that focus 

on male pickup truck drivers that show how an airbag can work both for and against occupants, 

particularly what the likely crash outcome would be if the occupants were not wearing their 

safety belt. 

New campaign development should strongly consider the consensus opinions as to where and 

why male pickup truck drivers in rural areas of the U.S. do not wear their safety belts. Key 

elements in message development should address and/or refute the following about safety belts. 

Safety belts are: 

• Uncomfortable; 

• Restrictive; 

• A “hassle” – especially when in and out of a vehicle; 

• A debatable safety benefit; 

• A concern; one could get trapped in a vehicle; 

• An issue of personal freedom of choice - whether to wear one or not; 

• Not needed on local roads and low speed limits; 

• Not needed on short trips; 

• Not needed in good weather; and 

• Not needed in a pickup truck because they are a larger vehicle and thus safer. 

New campaigns should be designed to emphasize crash fears and concerns that were repeatedly 

voiced by most of the participants. 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. Crash fears to emphasize include: 

• Paralysis and wheelchair use; 

• Loss of limb; and 

• Impact on family; feelings of sadness and leaving them behind. 

New messages and campaigns should include the following: 
37

• Use realism; 

• Be short and to the point; 

• Show consequences to family; 

• Show every day events, local areas, real people; 

• Film video messages in rural communities; 

• Spokesperson from the local community, celebrities are not recommended; 

• Show real people who have been in crashes; 

• Use First Responders who have gone to crash scenes; 

• “Medical Consequences” can be used for Hispanic and young male audiences; 

• Show the possibility of survival if safety belt had been used in a violent crash; 

• Film and record Hispanic versions that are not just language translations; 

• If statistics are used – use “1 out of 3,” not 33 percent; and 

• Humor is not recommended. 

Educational efforts and campaigns should address the following subject matter: 

• Low speed crashes - show crash damage and travel speed; 

• Airbags - ejection and rollovers; 

• Short trips; 

• Hispanic and youth “fate” issues; 

• Develop the “habit” of wearing a safety belt; 

• Wearing a safety belt should be as automatic as putting the key in the ignition; 

• Reverse the “mind set” of freedom to choose to wear a safety belt; 

• Decide to wear a safety belt all the time versus deciding when to wear the safety belt; 

• Get used to the feel of the belt: develop countermeasures for discomfort; and 

• Evolution of DWI laws and societal acceptance compared to safety belt use acceptance. 

Additional Issues 

1. Many participants mentioned that higher fines for noncompliance with the safety belt 

laws would be an effective motivation for wearing their safety belt. 

2. Primary or standard enforcement of the safety belt laws in all States will continue to 

yield higher usage rates throughout all populations.

3. Commercial vehicle drivers are now required to wear safety belts. Now is an 

appropriate time to make the case to the States which do not require pickup truck 

occupants eighteen years and older, to change their laws. If drivers of large trucks must 

wear safety belts, then pickup truck drivers should as well. 
38

VIII. REFERENCES 

Bondy, N, Glassbrenner, D. (2001). National Occupant Protection Use Survey – 2000, 

Controlled Intersection Study. National Center for Statistics and Analysis Research Note, 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC, August 2001. 

Bradbard, S. L., Panlener, J. C., Lisboa-Farrow E. (1996). Program Strategies for Increasing 

Safety Belt Usage in Rural Areas, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT HS 

808 505. 

Observed Safety Belt Use, Fall 2000 National Occupant Protection Use Survey (2001). National 

Center for Statistics and Analysis Research Note, National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, Washington, DC, February 2001. 

Observed Safety Belt Use from December 1999 & June 2000 MiniNOPUS (2000). National 

Center for Statistics and Analysis Research Note, National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, Washington, DC, November 2000. 

Safety Belt and Helmet Use in 2002 – Overall Results (2002). National Center for Statistics and 

Analysis, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC, September 2002, 

available NTIS Springfield, VA, report number DOT HS 809 500. 

Solomon, M. G., Leaf, W.A., Nissen, W.J. (2001). Process and Outcome Evaluation: The 

Buckle Up America Initiative. Technical Report to the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, Washington, DC, July 2001. 
39

APPENDIX A 

1999 FARS DATA 

Table A1 

Vehicles in Fatal Crashes by Body Type (FARS 1999) 

Body Type Total 

Pickup Auto All Other Vehicles Fatality in the 

Vehicle 

Count % Count % Count % 

Count % 

No Fatality 5323 48.0% 9468 34.0% 9657 54.6% 24448 43.1% 

Fatality 5773 52.0% 18419 66.0% 8028 45.4% 32220 56.9% 

Total 11096 100.0% 27887 100.0% 17685 100.0% 56668 100.0% 

Table A2 

Fatalities By Vehicle Body Type and Restraint Use (FARS 1999) 

Body Type 

Pickup Auto All Other Vehicles 

Restraint Total 

Usage Count % Count % Count % Count % 

None Used or NA 4502 72.9% 10535 50.7% 5055 57.0% 20092 56.1% 

Restraint Used 1269 20.6% 8281 39.9% 1706 19.2% 11256 31.4% 

Other 401 6.5% 1955 9.4% 2102 23.7% 4458 12.5% 

Total 6172 100.0% 20771 100.0% 8863 100.0% 35806 100.0% 

Table A3 

Cargo Area Occupant Fatalities (FARS 1999)

Body Type 

Pickup Auto All Other Vehicles Seating Total 

Position 

Count % Count % Count % Count % 

Driver 4711 76.3% 14123 68.0% 6376 71.9% 25210 70.4% 

Other Passenger/ 

Passenger/Cargo Area 

127 2.1% 12 .1% 223 2.5% 362 1.0% 

All Others 1334 21.6% 6636 31.,9% 2264 25.5% 10234 28.6% 

Total 6172 100.0% 20771 100.0% 8863 100.0% 35806 100.0% 
40

Table A4 

State-By-State Fatal Crashes: Restraint Used and Vehicle Body Type (FARS 1999)

Body Type 

State Pickup Truck Auto 

Count % Count % 

AL 190 17.3% 575 52.4% 

AK 16 19.3% 32 38.6% 

AZ 257 22.3% 524 45.6% 

AR 118 23.1% 215 42.2% 

CA 734 15.6% 2568 54.6% 

CO 135 17.7% 353 46.3% 

CT 17 5.8% 198 67.1% 

DC 13 13.4% 52 53.6% 

DE 2 6.7% 17 56.7% 

FL 506 13.3% 2185 57.5% 

GA 237 13.7% 971 56.0% 

HI 22 19.5% 62 54.9% 

ID 64 24.4% 113 43.1% 

IL 139 9.5% 837 57.4% 

IN 93 9.4% 559 56.6% 

IA 43 11.9% 213 59.0% 

KS 72 15.8% 241 52.9% 

KY 136 19.0% 402 56.2% 

LA 178 21.0% 436 51.5% 

ME 31 14.6% 137 64.3% 

MD 99 12.2% 490 60.6% 

MA 18 9.9% 118 64.8% 

MI 292 17.0% 961 55.9% 

MN 87 14.1% 334 54.3% 

MS 122 17.0% 380 52.9% 

MO 126 12.9% 558 57.0% 

MT 37 26.6% 46 33.1% 

NE 25 10.4% 116 48.1% 

NV 92 21.0% 194 44.2% 

NH 7 7.4% 75 78.9% 

NJ 49 7.0% 452 64.2% 

NM 121 23.1% 228 43.5% 

NY 148 8.6% 1044 60.6% 

NC 309 15.2% 1152 56.5% 

ND 17 19.8% 39 45.3% 

OH 205 13.5% 849 56.0% 

OK 168 21.5% 401 51.3% 

OR 120 22.1% 274 50.4% 

PA 173 12.4% 744 53.1% 
41

Table A4 (Continued) 

State-By-State Fatal Crashes: Restraint Used and Vehicle Body Type (FARS 1999) 

Body Type 

State Pickup Truck Auto 

Count % Count % 

RI 5 8.3% 40 66.7% 

SC 180 15.2% 638 53.8% 

SD 19 20.9% 43 47.3% 

TN 207 16.3% 669 52.6% 

TX 1219 25.5% 2304 48.2% 

UT 55 16.8% 133 40.5% 

VT 10 13.5% 33 44.6% 

VA 84 13.3% 360 57.1% 

WA 120 16.8% 373 52.2% 

WV 77 20.1% 188 49.0% 

WI 121 15.7% 378 49.1% 

WY 31 23.8% 35 26.9% 

Total 7346 16.2% 24339 53.7% 

Table A5 

State-By-State Fatal Crashes: No Restraint Used and Vehicle Body Type (FARS 1999)

Body Type 

State Pickup Truck Auto 

Count % Count % 

AL 301 24.6% 654 53.5% 

AK 30 33.7% 27 30.3% 

AZ 271 25.7% 382 36.3% 

AR 204 32.4% 253 40.2% 

CA 320 16.3% 880 44.9% 

CO 167 24.8% 243 36.1% 

CT 23 9.1% 155 61.5% 

DC 18 18.9% 58 61.1% 

DE 1 2.9% 17 50.0% 

FL 498 17.6% 1424 50.2% 

GA 307 25.0% 570 46.3% 

HI 17 18.9% 37 41.1% 

ID 126 31.6% 136 34.1% 

IL 164 14.6% 601 53.3% 

IN 198 22.7% 429 49.2% 

IA 97 25.3% 154 40.2% 

KS 184 33.5% 209 38.0% 

KY 219 25.1% 485 55.5% 

LA 276 32.2% 382 44.6% 
42

Table A5 (Continued) 

State-By-State Fatal Crashes: No Restraint Used and Vehicle Body Type (FARS 1999) 

Body Type 

State Pickup Truck Auto 

Count % Count % 

ME 29 17.9% 87 53.7% 

MD 56 15.6% 220 61.3% 

MA 31 10.3% 207 68.5% 

MI 196 20.1% 520 53.3% 

MN 115 22.2% 249 48.1% 

MS 281 23.3% 693 57.6% 

MO 326 27.4% 576 48.4% 

MT 101 31.2% 99 30.6% 

NE 73 20.6% 159 44.9% 

NV 66 24.6% 132 49.3% 

NH 28 20.1% 63 45.3% 

NJ 34 5.7% 364 61.3% 

NM 142 26.1% 157 28.9% 

NY 113 10.7% 609 57.9% 

NC 205 19.5% 515 49.1% 

ND 49 35.8% 63 46.0% 

OH 218 15.2% 725 50.5% 

OK 292 35.1% 347 41.8% 

OR 72 27.5% 121 46.2% 

PA 172 12.7% 734 54.2% 

RI 4 4.8% 51 61.4% 

SC 169 16.3% 587 56.8% 

SD 51 25.0% 108 52.9% 

TN 339 23.3% 772 53.1% 

TX 973 30.0% 1292 39.9% 

UT 96 23.9% 144 35.1% 

VT 16 17.4% 44 47.8% 

VA 151 18.9% 421 52.6% 

WA 129 23.2% 272 48.8% 

WV 94 23.9% 207 52.5% 

WI 123 18.4% 319 47.6% 

WY 70 32.0% 67 30.6% 

Total 8237 22.0% 18020 48.1% 

Note: The FARS numbers for restrained and unrestrained in Tables A6 and A7 do not 

equal 100 percent because FARS distinguishes the presence of unknown data.
43

APPENDIX B 

STATE-BY-STATE 

FATALITY AND EDUCATIONAL CAMPAIGN DATA (as of 2000) 

Table B1 

Statewide Pickup Truck Summary Separate Pickup Truck Crash, Injury, Fatality Data Available

State

Number of Pickup Truck Occupant Fatalities Statewide 1999Pickup Truck Fatalities as a Percentage of Statewide FatalitiesState Pickup Truck Occupant Fatalities – as a Percentage of the Total National Pickup Truck Fatalities Safety belt Law for Pickup Trucks Same as Passenger VehiclesDriverPassengerCargo AreaSeparate Pickup Truck Belt Use Data AvailablePrevious Pickup Truck Oriented PIE CampaignsFuture Pickup Truck PIE PlannedExpressed Interest in Participating

AL 207 22.5% 3.4% T T T T T 0 0 N

AK 14 17.9% .2% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T

AZ 157 18.4% 2.8% T T T T 0 0 0 T

AR 149 26.2% 2.4% T T T T T T 0 N

CA 412 13.2% 6.7% T T T T T 0 0 0 

CO 109 16.4% 1.8% T T T T T T 0 T

CT 16 5.8% .3% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

DC 4 7.3% .1% T 0 0 0 0 0 0 T

DE 9 7.8% .1% T T P P 0 0 0 T

FL 326 13.6% 5.3% T T 0 0 0 T 0 T

GA 267 18.5% 4.4% N P T T T 0 T T

HI 9 8.7% .1% T P 0 0 T T 0 T

IA 79 18.6% 1.3% T T 0 0 0 T T T

ID 56 26.9% 1.1% T T T T T 0 0 T

IL 142 11.8% 2.3% T T T T T T 0 N

IN 127 15.2% 2.1% N T P 0 T 0 0 T

KS 100 21.5% 1.6% T T T T T 0 T N

KY 156 19.9% 2.6% T 0 0 0 T 0 0 T

LA 208 25.0% 3.4% T T T 0 T T T T

MA 35 9.0% .6% T 0 0 0 0 0 0 N

MD 50 9.1% .8% T T T 0 T T T T

ME 30 17.2% .5% T 0 0 0 0 0 0 T

MI 163 14.4% 2.7% T P P P T T T T

MN 92 17.9% 1.5% T T T T 0 0 0 T

MO 215 21.3% 3.5% N T T T T T 0 T

MS 177 24.7% 2.9% T 0 0 0 T 0 0 0 
44

Table B1 (Continued) 

Statewide Pickup Truck Summary Separate Pickup Truck Crash, Injury, Fatality Data Available

State

Number of Pickup Truck Occupant Fatalities Statewide (1999)Pickup Truck Fatalities as a Percentage of Statewide FatalitiesState Pickup Truck Occupant Fatalities – as a Percentage of the Total National Pickup Truck Fatalities Safety belt Law for Pickup Trucks Same as Passenger Vehicles

Driver PassengerCargo Area

Separate Pickup Truck Belt Use Data AvailablePrevious Pickup Truck Oriented PIE CampaignsFuture Pickup Truck PIE PlannedExpressed Interest in Participating

MT 59 26.8% 1.0% T P P P T 0 0 N

NE 38 16.7% .6% T T T 0 0 0 T T

NV 48 18.3% .8% T T T P 0 0 0 T

NH 13 9.9% 2.0% N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

NJ 27 4.6% 4.0% T T T T 0 0 0 N

NM 87 1.4% 22.7% T T T T 0 T 0 T

NY 86 1.4% 7.4% T T T P T 0 0 N

NC 199 3.3% 14.7% T T T T T 0 0 T

ND 28 .5% 27.5% T T T T T 0 0 T

OH 165 2.7% 13.1% T T T T T 0 T T

OK 160 2.6% 25.8% T T T T T T 0 T

OR 82 1.3% 19.8% N T T 0 0 0 0 T

PA 110 1.8% 8.3% T T T T 0 T 0 T

RI 6 .1% 8.7% T 0 0 0 0 0 0 N

SC 150 2.5% 16.2% T T T T 0 0 0 T

SD 30 .5% 19.5% T T 0 0 0 0 0 T

TN 236 3.9% 20.4% T T 0 0 ? 0 0 N

TX 781 12.8% 24.3% T P P P T 0 0 0 

UT 44 .7% 17.2% T T T 0 0 0 0 T

VT 6 .1% 6.9% T P P P 0 0 0 T

VA 123 2.0% 15.0% T T T T 0 T T N

WA 84 1.4% 14.8% T P P P T 0 T T

WV 61 1.0% 17.7% T 0 0 0 T 0 T T

WI 118 1.9% 16.6% T T T T T 0 T T

WY 54 .9% 30.0% T T T T 0 T T 0 

PR ? ? ? ? T T 0 T T T T

GU ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 0 

 = Yes N = No 

P = Partial 0 = No response 

T = Tentative ? = Outstanding data 
45

Table B2: Governor’s Offices of Highway Safety Information Tally 

State Responses * 

Question 

Yes No 

Yes With 

Exceptions 

No 

Response 

Pickup truck occupant protection laws 

compared to other passenger vehicles 44 6 0 0 

Illegal for children to ride in cargo area 19 20 10 1 

Publicizing Kids Aren’t Cargo campaign 15 33 0 2 

Pickup truck safety belt data collected 

separately from other passenger vehicles 28 22 

0 0 

Observational data on cargo area 

passengers 3 47 0 0 

Pickup truck public Information, education 

or Enforcement 

 campaign tried 

 campaign planned in future 

16 

14 

30 

31 

0 

2 

2 

6 

Willingness to serve as pilot test location 28 11 7 4 

Crash Data 

 pickup truck drivers 

 pickup truck front seat passengers 

 cargo area occupants 

38 

33 

25 

8 

12 

16 

0 

0 

0 

4 

5 

9 

Fatality Data 

 pickup truck drivers 

 pickup truck front seat passengers 

 cargo area occupants 

41 

31 

29 

5 

9 

13 

0 

0 

0 

4 

5 

8 

Injury Data 

 pickup truck drivers 

 pickup truck front seat passengers 

 cargo area occupants 

37 

31 

24 

8 

12 

15 

0 

0 

0 

5 

7 

11 
46

APPENDIX C 

AGE AND GENDER IN FATAL CRASHES 

Table C1 

Pickup Truck Occupants Involved in Fatal Crashes 

By Age and Gender (FARS 2001)

Male Female Unknown Total Age Group Count % Count % Count % Count % 

0-9 371 2.8% 300 8.7% 2 1.5% 673 4.0% 

10-19 1971 15.0% 712 20.7% 2683 16.1% 

20-29 3152 24.0% 607 17.7% 3759 22.5% 

30-39 2452 18.7% 605 17.6% 3057 18.3% 

40-49 2178 16.6% 499 14.5% 1 .7% 2678 16.0% 

50-59 1388 10.6% 307 8.9% 1695 10.2% 

60-69 781 6.0% 185 5.4% 966 5.8% 

70-79 520 4.0% 128 3.7% 648 3.9% 

80-89 198 1.5% 51 1.5% 249 1.5% 

90+ 22 .2% 3 .1% 25 .1% 

Unknown 92 .7% 35 1.0% 133 97.8% 260 1.6% 

Total 13125 100.0% 3432 100.0% 136 100.0% 16693 100.0% 

Table C2: Pickup Truck Occupants Involved in Fatal Crashes 

By Age and Gender (FARS 1999)

Male Female Unknown Total 

Age Group Count % Count % Count % Count % 

0-9 372 2.8% 311 8.9% 1 .7% 684 4.1% 

10-19 2048 15.5% 730 20.9% 1 .7% 2779 16.5% 

20-29 3213 24.2% 662 18.9% 1 .7% 3876 23.0% 

30-39 2677 20.2% 614 17.6% 0 --- 3291 19.5% 

40-49 2054 15.5% 470 13.4% 0 --- 2524 14.9% 

50-59 1331 10.0% 311 8.9% 1 .7% 1643 9.7% 

60-69 719 5.4% 189 5.4% 0 --- 908 5.4% 

70-79 504 3.8% 128 3.7% 0 --- 632 3.7% 

80-89 198 1.5% 54 1.5% 0 --- 252 1.5% 

90+ 26 .2% 5 .1% 0 --- 31 .2% 

Unknown 111 .8% 22 .6% 134 97.1% 267 1.6% 

Total 13253 100.0% 3496 100.0% 138 100.0% 16887 100.0% 
47

Table C3 

Automobile Occupants Involved in Fatal Crashes 

By Age and Gender (FARS 2001)

Male Female Unknown Total Age Group Count % Count % Count % Count % 

0-9 1253 4.7% 1268 6.7% 2 .5% 2523 5.5% 

10-19 5832 21.8% 3950 21.0% 4 1.0% 9786 21.3% 

20-29 7914 29.6% 3706 19.7% 4 1.0% 11624 25.3% 

30-39 3545 13.2% 2325 12.3% 5870 12.8% 

40-49 2682 10.0% 2084 11.1% 2 .5% 4768 10.4% 

50-59 1727 6.5% 1542 8.2% 3269 7.1% 

60-69 1132 4.2% 1243 6.6% 2375 5.2% 

70-79 1405 5.3% 1512 8.0% 2917 6.3% 

80-89 912 3.4% 932 4.9% 1 .2% 1845 4.0% 

90+ 115 .4% 131 .7% 246 .5% 

Unknown 240 .9% 138 .7% 402 96.9% 780 1.7% 

Total 26757 100.0% 18831 100.0% 415 100.0% 46003 100.0% 

Table C4 

Automobile Occupants Involved in Fatal Crashes 

By Age and Gender (FARS 1999)

Male Female Unknown Total 

Age Group Count % Count % Count % Count % 

0-9 1464 5.4% 1356 6.8% 3 .7% 2823 6.0% 

10-19 6140 22.8% 4258 21.4% 2 .5% 10400 22.0% 

20-29 7453 27.6% 3729 18.8% 1 .2% 11183 23.6% 

30-39 3573 13.2% 2616 13.2% 2 .5% 6191 13.1% 

40-49 2594 9.6% 2094 10.5% 2 .5% 4690 9.9% 

50-59 1671 6.2% 1615 8.1% 1 .2% 3287 6.9% 

60-69 1214 4.5% 1339 6.7% 1 .2% 2554 5.4% 

70-79 1484 5.5% 1616 8.1% 0 --- 3100 6.6% 

80-89 1048 3.9% 1022 5.1% 0 --- 2070 4.4% 

90+ 125 .5% 101 .5% 0 --- 226 .5% 

Unknown 210 .8% 140 .7% 429 97.3% 779 1.6% 

Total 26976 100.0% 19886 100.0% 441 100.0% 47303 100.0% 
48

APPENDIX D 

STATE-BY-STATE OCCUPANT PROTECTION LAWS AND 

ENFORCEMENT PROTOCOLS 

Table D1 

State Safety Belt Laws (Current to November 2000) 

Coverage State Enforcement 

Seat Age 

AL Primary Front 6+ 

AK Secondary All 16+ 

AZ Secondary Front 5+ 

AR Secondary Front 5+ 

CA Primary All 16+ 

CO Secondary Front * 17+ 

CT Primary Front 4+ 

DE Secondary Front All 

DC Primary All 16+ 

FL Secondary Front 6+; 6-17 in rear 

GA Primary Front 4+; 4-17 in rear 

HI Primary Front 4+ 

ID Secondary Front 4+ 

IL Secondary Front * 6+ 

IN Primary Front 4+; 4-11 in rear 

IA Primary Front 6+ 

KS Secondary Front 14+ 

KY Secondary All Over 40 in. tall 

LA Primary Front 13+ 

ME Secondary All 4+ 

MD Primary Front 16+ 

MA Secondary All 12+ 

MI Primary Front 4+; 4-15 in rear 

MN Secondary Front All; 3-10 in rear 

MS Secondary Front 4+; 4-7 in rear 
49

Table D1 (Continued) 

Safety Belt Laws (Current to November 2000)

Coverage State Enforcement 

Seat Age 

MO Secondary Front 4+; 4-15 in rear 

MT Secondary All 4+ 

NE Secondary Front 5+ 

NV Secondary All 6+ 

NH Secondary All Under 18 only 

NJ Primary Front 5+ 

NM Primary Front 11+ 

NY Primary Front 16+ 

NC Primary Front 16+ 

ND Secondary Front 18+ 

OH Secondary Front 4+ 

OK Primary Front All 

OR Primary All 16+ 

PA Secondary Front 4+ 

RI Secondary All 6+ 

SC Secondary Front 6+ 

SD Secondary Front 5+ 

TN Secondary Front 13+ 

TX Primary Front 4+; 4-14 in rear 

UT Secondary All 19+ 

VT Secondary All 13+ 

VA Secondary Front 16+ 

WA Secondary All All 

WV Secondary Front 9+; 9-17 in rear 

WI Secondary All 4+; 4-15 in rear 

WY Secondary All 5+ 

PU Primary front 5+ 

 * Law applies to all seating positions if driver is under 18 years old. 
50

APPENDIX E 

STATE-BY-STATE 

PICKUP TRUCK CARGO LAWS 

AND 

EDUCATIONAL CAMPAIGNS (as of 2000)

Table E1: “Kids Aren’t Cargo” Summary Data 

Law Prohibits Cargo Area Data 

State

Y N 

Under 

“X” Age 

Public 

Information 

Campaign 

Yes 

Occupants in Cargo 

Area Observations 

Yes Injury Fatalities 

AL --- U --- NO U YES YES 

AK --- U --- ? ? ? ? 

AZ --- U --- U NO YES YES 

AR --- U --- U NO YES YES 

CA U --- --- NO NO YES YES 

CO --- U --- NO NO YES YES 

CT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

DC --- U --- NO NO NO NO 

DE U --- --- NO NO YES YES 

FL --- --- 6 U NO NO NO 

GA U --- --- NO U YES YES 

HI --- --- 13 NO NO NO NO 

IA --- U --- U NO NO NO 

ID --- U --- U NO YES YES 

IL --- U --- U NO YES YES 

IN ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 

KS U --- --- NO NO YES YES 

KY U --- --- NO NO NO NO 

LA U --- --- U NO NO NO 

MA U --- --- NO NO NO NO 

MD U --- 16 U NO 0 0 

ME --- U --- 0 0 0 0 

MI --- --- 4 t NO NO NO YES 

MN --- U --- NO NO YES YES 

MO U --- --- NO NO YES YES 

MS ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 

MT ? ? t ? ? ? ? 

NE --- U --- U NO NO NO 

NV --- --- 5 NO NO NO YES 
51

Table E1: “Kids Aren’t Cargo” Summary Data (Continued) 

Law Prohibits Cargo Area Data 

State

Y N 

Under 

“X” Age 

Public 

Information 

Campaign 

Yes 

Occupants in Cargo 

Area Observations 

Yes Injury Fatalities 

NH ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 

NJ U --- --- NO NO YES YES 

NM --- U --- NO NO YES YES 

NY --- U --- NO NO YES YES 

NC U --- --- NO NO YES YES 

ND --- U --- NO NO YES YES 

OH U --- ---- NO NO YES YES 

OK --- U --- NO NO YES YES 

OR --- --- t U NO NO NO 

PA U --- --- NO NO YES YES 

RI U --- --- NO NO NO NO 

SC --- --- 6 NO NO YES YES 

SD --- --- 5 0 0 0 0 

TN U --- --- NO NO NO NO 

TX --- --- 12 U NO 0 0 

UT --- --- t U NO 0 0 

VT --- U --- NO NO NO YES 

VA U --- --- U NO YES YES 

WA --- U --- NO NO NO YES 

WV --- U --- NO NO NO NO 

WI U --- --- U NO YES YES 

WY U --- --- U NO YES YES 

PR U --- NO U U NO NO 

GU ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 

U = Yes

t = Any age can ride in cargo area if all belts are in use 

? = Outstanding data 

0 = No response 
52

APPENDIX F 

PARTICIPANT SCREENING TOOLS 

Participant Screener For Georgia, Michigan, Montana, and Texas (and Spanish translation) 

Hello, my name is ( ) with ( ), a market research firm located here in ( ). 

We are currently conducting a study on people’s attitudes towards automotive related issues. We 

well be conducting focus group discussions on ( ). 

We will be offering ( ) to compensate you for your time. Will you be available? 

Let me ask you a few questions. 

 *******************All Respondents Must Be MALE************************** 

1. Do you or anyone in your household work in any of the following fields? 

(if yes to any, TERMINATE) 

Advertising, public relations or lobbying ____ 

Radio, TV or other media related fields ____ 

Opinion or market research ____ 

A business that sells, services or rents 

 automobile vehicles ____ 

2. Have you ever been in an interview or a group discussion 

for a marketing research company before? 

Yes ____ (Go to #3) 

No ____ (Go to #4) 

3. How long ago and what was the topic? 

If less than 6 month ____ (TERMINATE) 

If topic was related to automotive vehicles ____ (TERMINATE) 

4. What do you consider to be your race? 

African American ____ 

Caucasian ____ 

Hispanic ____ 

Other ____ 
53

5. Which of the following vehicles do you own and drive on a 

regular basis? 

a. Automobile ____ 

b. Mini van ____ 

c. Full-size Van ____ 

d. Sport Utility Vehicle ____ 

e. Pick-up Truck ____ (if NOT indicated, TERMINATE) 

6. Is the area in which you live considered to be an urban, suburban or 

rural area? 

a. Urban ____ 

b. Suburban ____ 

c. Rural ____ (If indicated, Go To #8) 

7. Is the area in which you work considered to be an urban, suburban 

or rural areas? 

a. Urban ____ 

b. Suburban ____ 

c. Rural ____ (If NOT indicated, TERMINATE) 

8. Which of the following statements best describes how you are? 

a. I never use seat belts when driving my pick-up truck ____ 

b. I seldom use seat belts when driving my pick-up truck ____ 

c. I use seat belts some times when driving my pick-up truck ____ 

d. I use my seat belts most times when driving my pick-up truck ____ 

e. I always use seat belts when driving my pick-up truck ____ 

 If “d” or “e” indicated, TERMINATE 

 

9. In which of the following ranges is your household income? 

Under $20,000 ____ (want 

$20,000-29,999 ____ a mixture 

$30,000-49,999 ____ of 

$50,000 and above ____ incomes) 

10. Could you please tell me your occupation? (RECORD JOB TITLE AND 

COMPANY NAME) _________________________________________ 

 If employed by local, State, or federal government, TERMINATE 
54

 No more than 2 per group can be students or unemployed. 

11. Which of the following best reflects your marital status: 

a. Single ____ (want 

b. Married ____ a mixture 

c. Divorced ____ of 

d. Separated ____ marital status) 

12. Are you a parent with children who live at home with you? 

 Yes ____ (At least half of group must indicate “YES”) 

 No ____ 

13. In which of the following ranges is your age? 

 Under 18 ____ (TERMINATE) 

18-22 ____ (Recruit for “YOUNGER GROUP”) 

23-27 ____ (Recruit for “YOUNGER GROUP”) 

28-35 ____ (Recruit for “OLDER GROUP”) 

36-54 ____ (Recruit for “OLDER GROUP”) 

55 and older ____ (Recruit for “OLDER GROUP”) 

Want a mixture of ages. 

***********************RECRUITMENT ROUTINE********************** 

 *******************Articulation Drill******************** 

 

If you could start your own business, what would it be, and how would it be different from its 

competition? ____ 

Only recruit respondents who are able to formulate and articulate ideas clearly and in detail. 

Otherwise, TERMINATE 

 **************************Respondent Information********************* 

Record: 

 Younger Male Group (Age 18-27) ____ 

 Older Male Group (Age 28 & up) ____ 

Name: _____________________ Phone numbers: ____________ (home) 

Address: _____________________ ____________ (work) 

 _____________________ 
55

APPENDIX G 

MODERATOR’S GUIDE FOR FOCUS GROUPS CONDUCTED WITH 

RURAL, MALE PICKUP TRUCK DRIVERS 

I. INTRODUCTION (10 Min.) 

 Explain the purpose and process of the focus groups. 

 Respondents introduce themselves by providing: 

• Name 

• Age 

• Occupation 

• Household composition 

II. ATTITUDES TOWARDS SAFETY MEASURES (20 Minutes) 

 To what extent do you consider yourselves to be generally safety conscious? 

 What are the things about which you are most conscientious relative to safety? Why? 

• What are examples of things you do to promote safety in these areas? 

• How did you learn about these things? 

 Generally speaking, are there any things relative to safety you know you should be doing, but 

you’re not? What/Why not? 

 How do you feel about seat belts? 

(Stress that this part of conversation has nothing to do with whether they use seat belts or 

not, just attitudes) 

• Do you feel seat belts are important to safety? Why/Why not? 

• Who needs them? 

• Are attitudes any different for pick-up trucks versus cars? 

 What are the laws regarding seat belts? (PROBE: Cars versus pick-up trucks) 

 How do you feel about these laws? (PROBE: Cars versus pick-up trucks) 

• What should the laws be? Why? 

 What are the laws regarding passengers in the bed of a pick-up truck? 
56

 How do you feel about these laws? 

 What do you think about the safety of riding in the cargo area of a pick-up truck? 

• How often do you see passengers in pick-up beds? 

• Do you ever ride there? 

• Describe the most likely occasions? 

III. SAFETY BELT UTILIZATION (15 Minutes) 

 How often do you use seat belts? 

• How often in the last week did you NOT wear the seat belt? 

 What kind of things impact whether or not you use seat belts? 

(PROBE: children, other passengers, distance, highway, city, policemen, State laws, fines, 

and likelihood of being stopped) 

 Are you any more or less likely to use seat belts if you are in a car or pick-up truck? 

 What are some of the specific things that keep you from wearing seat belts more often? 

• Did you wear seat belts as a child? 

 What are some of the reasons why you use seat belts? 

(Safer if in a crash, reminder of passenger, set good example for children, don’t want a ticket, 

it’s the law) 

 How would the imagery you associate with the person(s) who typically use seat belts 

compare to that of people who typically do not use seat belts? 

IV. RESPONSE TO MOTIVATIONAL EFFORTS (30 Minutes) 

 What kind of things need to be, or could be, done to get you to wear seat belts more often? 

INTRODUCE EACH CONCEPT STATEMENT/THEME and obtain responses to: 

 How do you feel about this theme? 

 How effective do you feel this theme could be? 

• What specifically impacts the potential effectiveness of this approach/theme? 

 Could anything be done to make it more effective? 
57

 For whom might this theme work? 

AFTER ALL HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED: 

 Which of these themes work best/least? 

V. RESPONSES TO EXISTING CAMPAIGNS AND PROPERTIES (15 Minutes) 

 Are there any efforts you remember that were directed at getting people to wear safety belt 

more often? 

• Describe the efforts? 

• What did you think about them? 

• To what extent were they effective? 

• What is it that made them memorable? 

SHOW SEVERAL CAMPAIGNS AND PROPERTIES, after all have been shown: 

 Were there any aspects of any of these efforts you felt had potential for motivating you or 

your family and friends to use seat belts? Which ones/Why? 

 Were there any aspects that really turned you off, or should be avoided, in an effort to get 

you to use seat belts more often? 

 Is there anything about any of these efforts that could be changed to make them more 

effective? 

 Is there any one campaign or property you consider to be the most or least effective? Why? 

VI. DEVELOPMENT OF CAMPAIGN COMPONENTS (30 Minutes) 

 If you were responsible for the development of an effort to get people like you to use seat 

belts more often when driving their trucks, what would you do? 

• What should be the theme, message, motivation? 

• How should it be disseminated? (i.e. TV, print, radio, schools, church, special events) 

• If a spokesperson were used, who should it be? Why? 

** What would be the important characteristics this person should have? 

 Should the effort be any different if it is specifically for pick-up trucks instead of cars?
58

Moderator’s Guide for Handout of Reasons and Approaches-1 

Reasons for not wearing a safety belt: 

Pickup trucks are big and you ride higher up, so you are safer if there is a crash. 

Approach A – Statistical Argument 

In 34% of pickup truck crashes, the driver or the passenger of the pickup truck is thrown out of 

the vehicle, usually through the front windshield. 

Approach B – Humorous Argument 

A pickup truck is so high above the roadway that the driver will have a great view as he and his 

truck hit the concrete wall. 

Approach C – Celebrity Spokesperson Argument 

Cal Ripkin drives his pickup truck to all his home games and says: “I always buckle up for 

safety; I don’t want to miss a single game.” 

Approach D – Medical Consequences Argument 

When you get into a crash, you’ll probably fit through the great big windshield of your pickup 

truck, just before you become road kill! 

Approach E – Consequences to Self and Others - Argument 

No matter how large a pickup truck you drive, it’s no match for a crash with a tractor -trailer. If 

you survive, your family and friends can wheel you around in a - not so big - wheelchair. 
59

Moderator’s Guide for Handout of Reasons and Approaches-2 

Reason for not wearing a safety belt: 

I’m an excellent driver and my reflexes are great, so I’m not concerned about getting in a 

crash. 

Approach A – Statistical Argument 

In surveys, 83% of drivers rated themselves as well above average or above average drivers. 

Approach B – Humorous Argument 

My driving skills are great but that other guy took forever to find his brake pedal. He rear ended 

me and sent me right through my front windshield. 

Approach C – Celebrity Spokesperson Argument 

Sammy Sosa says: “Most of my friends say they’re as quick behind the wheel as I am at bat, but 

I don’t take chances in my pickup truck; I buckle up for safety.” 

Approach D – Medical Consequences Argument 

I was quick with the wheel and fast on the brakes but the tractor -trailer jackknifed and as I was 

thrown from my truck he jackknifed me too. 

Approach E – Consequences to Self and Others – Argument 

My son was proud of how I avoided the pileup, but when we got rear-ended and I fell out my 

door, he grabbed my arm and tried hard to hold on to me. The look in our eyes when he couldn’t 

hold on and I fell out of my pickup truck is a sight neither of us can ever forget. If only I had 

been wearing my seat belt, I wouldn’t be in this wheelchair today; and my son wouldn’t have 

that sad and guilty look in his eyes, every time he sees me. 
60

Moderator’s Guide for Handout of Reasons and Approaches-3 

Reason for not wearing a safety belt: 

If I wear my seat belt and it jams, I will be trapped in my pickup truck if there is a crash. 

Approach A – Statistical Argument 

Crash data and law enforcement crash reports show that belts jam in crashes fewer than one 

percent of the time. 

Approach B – Humorous Argument 

I didn’t wear my seat belt because I thought it might jam and trap me in my pickup truck. Now 

I’m stuck between the roof of my cab and my steering wheel. That’s what I call JAMMED! 

Approach C – Celebrity Spokesperson Argument 

Randy Travis says, “Don’t get trapped between that old tree and your pickup – wear your seat 

belt every time you head down the road.” 

Approach D – Medical Consequences Argument 

I didn’t want to get stuck in my pickup truck; just didn’t want the safety belt to bruise my chest. 

Now I’m stuck but good-between my pickup and that mini van! 

Approach E – Consequences to Self and Others – Argument 

When I’d get into my pickup the kids would always remind me to put my seat belt on. I told 

them I’d take my chances. Now they’re visiting me at the cemetery. Guess I didn’t place a very 

good bet! 

DOT HS 809 711

May 2004