U. S. Department 

of Transportation 

National Highway 

Traffic Safety 

Administration 

DTNH22-97-D-05018 January 2001 

Final Report

Evaluation of Maryland, Oklahoma and the 

District of Columbia's Seat Belt Law 

Change to Primary Enforcement 

 

This document is available to the public from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161. 
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 

authors 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 contents or use thereof. If trade or manufacturers' 

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. 
 Technical Report Documentation Page 

1. Report No. 

DOT HS 809 213 

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

4. Title and Subtitle

Evaluation of Maryland, Oklahoma and the District of Columbia's Seat Belt Law 

Change to Primary Enforcement 

 

5. Report Date

 March 2001 

6. Performing Organization Code 

7. Author(s) 

 Mark G. Solomon, David F. Preusser and William J. Nissen

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 

 Preusser Research Group, Inc. 

 7100 Main Street 

 Trumbull, CT 06611

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) 

11. Contract or Grant No.

 DTNH22-97-D-05018

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

13. Type of Report and Period Covered 

 

14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

15. Supplementary Notes 

Dr. Linda Cosgrove served as the NHTSA Contracting Officer's Technical Representative for the study.

16. Abstract 

Some states allow an officer to stop a motorist for an observed belt law violation alone (primary enforcement). 

Most require that the initial stop be made for some other violation before a belt citation can be issued 

(secondary enforcement). In 1997, Maryland, Oklahoma and the District of Columbia upgraded their seat belt 

laws from secondary to primary enforcement. Each had an increase in belt use after the law change. Increases 

ranged from 8 to 18 percentage points. Drivers surveyed at DMV offices indicated that they had knowledge of 

the new law, were more likely to wear their belts now than in the past and most strongly agreed that belts make 

vehicle trips safer. The number of citations issued by police increased as soon as primary enforcement became 

effective. In a number of locations, citation data that identified race confirmed there was either no difference in 

non-white versus white ticketing, comparing secondary to primary enforcement, or a greater increase in 

ticketing went to whites following the change to a primary enforcement law. 

17. Key Words 

 Seat Belt Evaluation 

 Primary Enforcement Legislation 

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

i 
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TECHNICAL SUMMARY

CONTRACTOR

Preusser Research Group, Inc. 

CONTRACT NUMBER 

 DTNH22-97-D-05018 

REPORT TITLE 

Evaluation of Maryland, Oklahoma and the District of Columbia's Seat Belt Law 

Change to Primary Enforcement 

REPORT DATE 

 March 2001 

REPORT AUTHOR(S) 

Mark G. Solomon, David F. Preusser and William J. Nissen 

Background 

Primary or standard enforcement means that a seat belt citation can be issued whenever law 

enforcement officers observe an unbelted driver or passenger. Secondary enforcement means a citation 

can be written only after a law enforcement officer stops a vehicle for another violation. In 1997, two 

states, Maryland and Oklahoma, and the District of Columbia upgraded their seat belt laws from

secondary to primary enforcement. Maryland's law became effective October 1, 1997, Oklahoma's law 

took effect on November 1, 1997 and the District of Columbia's (DC) law took effect on October 9, 1997. 

Objective 

The objective of this study was to evaluate the change from secondary to primary enforcement 

in Maryland, Oklahoma, and DC with respect to observed belt use rates, driver reactions, law 

enforcement practices, citations issued and race. 

Method 

 

Statewide data and data for three study communities were collected in both Maryland and 

Oklahoma. District-wide data were collected in DC. 

Historical statewide belt use rates were collected. Occupant belt use was observed in each 

study community. Driver surveys at Department of Motor Vehicle offices and interviews with police 

officers were conducted in each study community. Additionally, citation data with race identifiers 

were collected, where available. 

(Continued on additional pages)

"PREPARED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION UNDER

CONTRACT NO.:DTNH22-97-D-05018. THE OPINIONS, FINDINGS, AND CONCLUSIONS EXPRESSED IN THIS PUBLICATION ARE

THOSE OF THE AUTHORS AND NOT NECESSARILY THOSE OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION."

HS Form 321 July 1974 

ii 
Belt Use 

Seat belt use rates made small gains if any from 1993 through 1996 in the study states and DC; 

large gains occurred around the time primary enforcement laws went into effect in 1997. The national 

belt use rate changed little from 1993 to 1996, and increased moderately after that. 

Front Seat Occupant Restraint Use 

Year

1993

(%) 

1994 

(%) 

1995 

(%) 

1996 

(%) 

1997 

(%) 

1998 

(%) 

1999 

(%) 

Nation 66 67 68 66 67 69

Study States

Primary Laws 

Enacted Enforced 

Maryland 72 69 70 70 71 83 83 

Oklahoma 47 45 46 48 60 56 61 

Washington D.C. 62 62 63 55 64 80 78 

Every study community had positive increases in the belt use rate. From 1997 to 1998, rate 

increases ranged from a low of 8 percentage points in Comanche County, Oklahoma to 18 percentage 

points in Baltimore County, Maryland. Use rates continued to increase into 1999. 

Percentage Point Change in Front Seat Occupant Belt Use

Pct. Point

Difference 

Pct. Point 

Difference 

1997

(%) 

1998 

(%) 

1999 

(%) 

1997-98 1998-99 

Maryland 

Howard County 79 92 93 +13 +1

Anne Arundel County 74 85 92 +11 +7

Baltimore County 63 81 92 +18 +11 

Oklahoma 

Comanche County 58 66 76 +8 +10 

Oklahoma County 50 66 69 +16 +3

Tulsa County 52 60 63 +8 +3

Washington D.C. 

District Observation Sites 67 79 80 +12 +1

Demographic information collected in Maryland and Oklahoma indicated that females were 

wearing seat belts more than males and that non-whites were wearing belts as much as whites. Pick-up 

truck drivers were less likely to be belted than drivers of other vehicle types. 

iii 
DMV Driver Survey

Driver data collected in 1998, after the primary laws took effect, indicated that most 

respondents "strongly agree" that seat belts make vehicle trips safer (MD 71%; OK 70%; DC 73%). 

Most drivers reported that they wear a seat belt "always" when riding in a passenger vehicle (MD 

85%; OK 72%; DC 78%). Many indicated an increase in use (MD 44%; OK 51%; DC 46%), and few 

indicated a decrease (MD 3%; OK 4%; DC 4%) during the preceding year. Females reported using 

belts more than males and non-whites were more likely than whites to have indicated an increase in 

use. 

A majority of respondents understood that a primary law existed (MD 87%; OK 90%; DC 

84%) and most believed there was at least a modest chance of receiving a seat belt ticket for noncompliance (MD 78%; OK 80%; DC 69%). Whites (MD 42%; OK 38%; DC 14%) indicated less 

belief that there was a high likelihood of getting a ticket compared to blacks (MD 50%; OK 51%; DC 

42%) and other non-whites (MD 56%; OK 56%; DC 46%). 

Respondents were able to recall that they saw, read or heard seat belt information (MD 48%; 

OK 64%; DC 46%). They most likely recalled a general belt safety message (MD 40%; OK 33%; DC 

31%), an explanation of the new law (MD 39%; OK 44%; DC 22%) and a message about enforcement 

(MD 20%; OK 24%; DC 48%). 

Citations Issued 

 

The number of citations issued increased after primary enforcement became effective. In 

Maryland, Oklahoma and DC, the increase continued through the end of the study period. At the study

community level, whether or not the increase continued depended on the particular community. 

In some locations, citation data included race identifiers. These data confirmed that there was 

either no difference in non-white versus white ticketing, comparing secondary to primary enforcement, or 

a greater increase in ticketing went to whites following the change to a primary enforcement law. 

Law Enforcement Interviews

Police believed that most motorists know that stops are permissible for a seat belt violation 

alone. Some police expressed that the motoring publics' desire not to receive a ticket was one of the 

reasons for increased belt use. Police also thought that higher fines would work better in raising belt 

use rates. However, they added that a higher fine could cause some police officers to write warnings 

instead of citations. 

Police valued the primary enforcement law as a crime detection tool, but acknowledged that 

there are many other mechanisms to establish probable cause to stop a suspicious driver. Many

expressed that the safety benefit of the law is more important than its use to establish probable cause 

for stops. Police were not aware of any organized resistance to the primary law. 

Conclusions 

iv 
The seat belt use rate went up in study locations with the implementation of a primary

enforcement seat belt law. Motorists were aware of the law and indicated they were more likely to wear a 

seat belt compared to in the past. Police were in favor of primary enforcement laws over secondary. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

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

II. BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................... 2

III. METHOD..................................................................................................................................................... 6

SELECTION OF STUDY COMMUNITIES..................................................................................................................... 6

Maryland ...................................................................................................................................................... 6

Oklahoma ..................................................................................................................................................... 6

The District of Columbia .............................................................................................................................. 7

DATA COLLECTION ................................................................................................................................................ 7

Statewide Belt Use ........................................................................................................................................ 7

Historical Seat Belt Use Data....................................................................................................................... 7

Observations of Seat Belt Use ...................................................................................................................... 7

DMV Driver Surveys .................................................................................................................................... 8

Law Enforcement Interviews ........................................................................................................................ 9

Citation Data ................................................................................................................................................ 9

IV. RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................... 11

OBSERVATIONS OF BELT USE RESULTS................................................................................................................ 11

Belt Use Demographics.............................................................................................................................. 12

MOTORIST KNOWLEDGE AND OPINIONS............................................................................................................... 13

Demographics of Respondents ................................................................................................................... 13

Self Reported Belt Use................................................................................................................................ 15

Knowledge of the Belt Law......................................................................................................................... 15

Risk of Getting a Ticket............................................................................................................................... 16

Sources of Information ............................................................................................................................... 18

SEAT BELT ENFORCEMENT................................................................................................................................... 19

Maryland .................................................................................................................................................... 19

Oklahoma ................................................................................................................................................... 23

The District of Columbia ............................................................................................................................ 25

LAW ENFORCEMENT INTERVIEW RESULTS........................................................................................................... 26

MARYLAND LAW ENFORCEMENT OPINIONS AND ATTITUDES .............................................................................. 26

Initial Response to Primary Law................................................................................................................ 26

Use of Primary Law.................................................................................................................................... 26

Motorist Reactions...................................................................................................................................... 27

Police Attitudes Toward Primary Law ....................................................................................................... 27

Perceived Effectiveness of Primary Law .................................................................................................... 28

OKLAHOMA LAW ENFORCEMENT OPINIONS AND ATTITUDES .............................................................................. 28

Initial Response to Primary Law................................................................................................................ 28

Use of Primary Law.................................................................................................................................... 29

Motorist Reactions...................................................................................................................................... 29

Police Attitudes Toward Primary Law ....................................................................................................... 30

Perceived Effectiveness of Primary Law .................................................................................................... 30

DC METROPOLITAN POLICE OPINIONS AND ATTITUDES ...................................................................................... 31

Initial Response to Primary Law................................................................................................................ 31

Use of Primary Law.................................................................................................................................... 31

v 
Motorist Reaction ....................................................................................................................................... 31

Police Attitudes Towards Primary Law...................................................................................................... 32

Perceived Effectiveness of Primary Law .....................................................................................................32

V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION......................................................................................................... 33 

DISCUSSION.......................................................................................................................................................... 33

CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................................................ 34

VI. REFERENCES........................................................................................................................................... 36

APPENDIX A: HISTORIC SEAT BELT OBSERVATION DATA AND DATA COLLECTION FORMS ............................... A-1 

APPENDIX B: DMV SURVEY FORMS AND SURVEY RESULTS ...............................................................................B-1 

APPENDIX C: TOPICAL INTERVIEW GUIDES FOR POLICE......................................................................................C-1 

vi 
I. INTRODUCTION 

This is the final report of a study entitled Evaluation of Maryland, Oklahoma and the District of 

Columbia's Seat Belt Law Change to Primary Enforcement. Work covered in this final report was carried 

out under Contract Number DTNH22-97-D-05018 (98-2). 

Most seat belt laws passed by states allow only secondary enforcement. That is, a motorist can 

receive a citation for a belt law violation if and only if first stopped for some other violation. Some states 

have passed laws allowing for primary or standard enforcement meaning that a motorist can receive a 

citation for a belt law violation alone. 

This report covers an evaluation of the effects of the change from secondary to primary seat belt 

law enforcement in Maryland, Oklahoma and the District of Columbia. 

1 
II. BACKGROUND 

Primary enforcement, sometimes referred to as standard enforcement, means that a seat belt 

citation can be written whenever a law enforcement officer observes an unbelted driver or front seat 

passenger. Secondary enforcement means a citation can be written only after a law enforcement 

officer stops a vehicle for another traffic violation. Statewide observation surveys show that states 

with primary enforcement laws have higher belt use rates than states with secondary enforcement laws. 

Fourteen states and the District of Columbia had passed primary enforcement laws by the end of 1998. 

The 14 states with primary enforcement laws averaged 75% belt use, while the states with secondary

enforcement averaged 61%, a 14 percentage point difference (NHTSA, 1999). 

The national rate for seat belt use rose from 14% in 1983 to 69% in 1998 (NHTSA, 1999). 

This success can be attributed to the passage of mandatory seat belt laws and the active enforcement of 

these laws. In general, those states with primary laws have seen greater increases in belt use than those 

states with secondary laws. 

In 1996, a NHTSA telephone survey found that 86% of the American public favored laws 

requiring drivers and front seat passengers to wear seat belts. More recently, a public opinion survey

found a majority of Americans (66%) supported primary enforcement laws (NHTSA, 1999). Similar 

attitudes toward stronger seat belt laws have been measured as high as 73% (Traffic Safety Now, 

1991). 

In general, law enforcement agencies have welcomed primary enforcement laws. Law 

enforcement officers have consistently pointed out that secondary enforcement laws are difficult to 

enforce. They also believe that secondary laws contribute to confusion among officers, the judiciary

and the public. Changing to primary enforcement, they say, elevates the importance of the law for 

both the motoring public and law enforcement (Ulmer, et al., 1994; Preusser and Preusser, 1997). 

Accordingly, people living in states with stronger seat belt laws are more likely to know what the law 

entails, believe wearing a seat belt is safer than not wearing one and believe enforcement action is 

more likely (NHTSA, 1996). 

Vigorous enforcement leads to higher belt use rates, particularly in primary law states. 

Campbell (1988) measured the association between seat belt law enforcement and usage rates in eight 

states with primary enforcement laws and 11 states with secondary enforcement laws. The results 

indicated that increasing levels of enforcement were associated with increasing levels of belt use. This 

association was stronger in the primary law states than in the secondary law states. Similarly, a given 

level of enforcement was associated with higher belt use in primary law states than in secondary law 

states. 

Ulmer et al. (1994) updated the earlier Campbell work using 1992 data. At that time, seven of 

Campbell's eight primary law states were still primary states. The results indicated a general trend 

toward increasing numbers of belt use citations and higher belt use rates in these states. In these seven 

states, belt use rates rose an average of approximately 13 percentage points, and enforcement rates 

were, on average, triple the rates reported earlier by Campbell. Again, primary laws were found to be 

associated with higher belt use rates than secondary laws, and higher enforcement levels whether 

primary or secondary, were associated with higher belt use rates. 

There is also evidence that mandatory seat belt use laws in general, and primary laws in 

particular, reduce the severity of crash injury. For instance, Wagenaar, et al. (1988) used time series 

2 
methods to evaluate the impact of the first eight mandatory use laws on traffic safety. A decline of 

almost 9% was reported in traffic fatalities following enactment of these laws. The primary law states 

experienced declines of almost 10% and secondary law states experienced declines of approximately

7%. A similar outcome was reported by Evans and Graham (1991) who studied traffic fatalities in five 

states with primary enforcement laws and 11 states with secondary laws. In the first full year 

following enactment of mandatory seat belt use laws, the primary law states experienced a reduction in 

motor vehicle occupant fatalities of more than 20% while the states with secondary laws experienced a 

decline of just 7%. 

Some states that had originally passed a secondary law, later adopted primary enforcement. 

The first three to implement an uninterrupted change from secondary to primary were California, 

Louisiana and Georgia. The change from secondary to primary seat belt law enforcement was evaluated 

in California (Ulmer, et al., 1994), Louisiana (Preusser and Preusser, 1997) and Georgia (Ulmer, et al., in 

process). These studies measured the relative effect of primary versus secondary enforcement by

focusing on observed belt use rates, motorist reactions, police officer reactions and citation levels, before 

and after the law change in several communities within each state. 

On January 1, 1993, California became the first state to implement an uninterrupted change from

secondary to primary seat belt law enforcement. Comprehensive enforcement and publicity programs 

supported implementation of the new law. In six study communities, the percentage of drivers observed 

wearing seat belts increased from 58% prior to the law change to 76% soon thereafter. Drivers surveyed 

at DMV offices indicated that they had knowledge of the new law and were likely to wear their belts 

more than in the past. The number of citations issued by law enforcement officers increased slightly after 

the change to primary enforcement. It is unlikely that the small increase in the number of citations, alone, 

accounted for the relatively large increase in observed belt use rates. Gains in belt use were more likely

due to a highly publicized implementation combined with continued enforcement (Ulmer, et al., 1994). 

On November 1, 1995, Louisiana became the second state to implement an uninterrupted change 

from secondary to primary enforcement. As had been the case in California, comprehensive enforcement 

and publicity programs introduced Louisiana's new law. In five study communities, belt use rose from

52% in the summer of 1994 to 68% in the spring of 1996, where it remained into the summer of 1996. 

Louisiana motorists received the new law favorably. Traffic and patrol officers also favored the change 

to primary enforcement. Louisiana, unlike California, experienced substantial increases in belt use 

ticketing by State Police and by the local departments. Trends toward increased ticket writing had begun 

well before 1995 and continued unabated into the period of primary enforcement. The Louisiana study

concluded that primary enforcement creates a direct relationship between failure to comply with the belt 

law and possible enforcement actions and that failure to wear a seat belt becomes more of a real violation 

for both officer and motorist. The result of this relationship was increased seat belt use (Preusser and 

Preusser, 1997). 

Georgia was the third state to go directly from secondary to primary enforcement when it passed 

a law on July 1, 1996. Shortly after the introduction of the law, the belt use rate increased by four 

percentage points in five selected study communities. Statewide, the increase was 11 percentage points. 

There was a clear increase in seat belt citations in study communities, more so than in California or 

Louisiana. However, there was less communication with the public. Rather, during the summer of 1996, 

most media and enforcement attention in Georgia focused on the Olympics (Ulmer, et al., in process). 

 

3 
Previous studies make it clear that primary seat belt laws lead to higher use rates. A strong law, 

in itself though, is not enough to persuade most motorists to buckle up. What works best is a strong law 

with adequate publicity and a public that believes the seat belt law is vigorously enforced (Cosgrove, in 

process). 

Maryland, Oklahoma and the District of Columbia were next to upgrade their seat belt laws 

from secondary to primary enforcement (Figure 1). Maryland's primary belt law became effective on 

October 1, 1997. The law applies to front seat passengers and includes most motor vehicle types on 

Maryland roadways but exempts US Postal vehicles when on duty. The maximum penalty for 

violating the law is $25. Oklahoma enacted a primary enforcement law on May 29, 1997. The law 

applies only to front seat passengers. Unlike in other states, Oklahoma lowered the fine for failure to 

wear a seat belt from $32.50 under their secondary law to $20 under their primary law. The law 

continues to cover passenger vehicles, but does not cover US Postal Service vehicles on duty, trucks 

and truck tractors and vehicles primarily used on a farm. In Oklahoma, a local jurisdiction has the 

right to adopt, and thus enforce as a municipal ordinance, any traffic law passed by the State 

Legislature. Oklahoma City, the largest city in the state, had refused to enact the primary law. The 

District of Columbia's mandatory seat belt law took effect on October 1, 1997. The law applies to 

front seat occupants. It more than tripled the fine from its prior secondary status ($15 to $50) and 

added a two-point license penalty for DC drivers. Taxis were added to the list of vehicle types covered 

by the law and taxi drivers failing to post a required seat belt use sign in their cabs can be issued a 

$100 fine. 

Primary Law

States Vehicles Covered Vehicles Exempt

Amount of 

Penalty

Maryland Passenger/multi-purpose- vehicle; 

truck; truck-tractor; bus 

US Postal Service vehicle on 

duty

$25 

Oklahoma Passenger car; van; 

pick-up truck 

US Postal Service vehicle on 

duty; Truck and truck tractor; 

Vehicle used on farm 

$20 

District of 

Columbia 

Vehicle seating eight 

or less people 

$50, plus 2 

points; $100 taxi 

not posting sign 

Figure 1. Seat Belt Use Law Provisions (as of December 1998) 

The enactment of primary enforcement laws in Maryland, Oklahoma and DC provided an 

opportunity to evaluate effects, over time, in respective environments. Maryland is a relatively small 

state with many cities and a number of densely populated areas. Most of its larger cities have 

municipal police departments that enforce traffic laws. County police departments also enforce traffic 

laws. The Maryland State Police provide enforcement on Maryland highways. DC is a single, densely

populated city. On any given weekday, DC has many commuting workers driving into the city from

both Maryland and Virginia. Three law enforcement agencies operate in DC in overlapping 

jurisdictions: the DC Metro Police; the National Park Police; and the Capitol Police. Each has the 

power to enforce traffic laws. Oklahoma is in a different geographic region of the country than 

Maryland and DC. The state has few densely populated areas. In Oklahoma, municipal police and 

4 
county sheriff departments both have traffic enforcement powers. The State Police have enforcement 

powers on the state's highways. 

All three locations are similar in that the statewide seat belt use rate improved little, if at all, in 

the years preceding the enactment of primary enforcement. Maryland remained above the national 

average, DC was just below and Oklahoma stayed far below. Each location passed a primary

enforcement law as a measure to improve a virtually stationary use rate and each law is different. 

Maryland and DC's laws cover more vehicle types than the law in Oklahoma. Maryland did not 

change the fine level from when it was secondary, Oklahoma lowered the fine and DC was the only

location to raise the fine and add points. 

NHTSA requested an evaluation to assess changes when each state upgraded their seat belt 

laws from secondary to primary enforcement. The evaluation was to address the following general 

questions: 

1. Does the seat belt usage rate increase after implementation of the primary law?

2. Are more seat belt citations issued by law enforcement officers?

3. Does public perception of risk of being cited change? 

4. Do law enforcement attitudes toward the seat belt law change? 

5. What public education (PI&E) campaigns do the public recall? Are they aware of the law 

change?

6. Are new enforcement strategies implemented that take advantage of the law and are they

publicized? 

7. Are there differential effects by ethnic group? 

5 
III. METHOD 

Selection of Study Communities 

Data were collected statewide and in three communities in Maryland and Oklahoma, and for 

the entire District of Columbia. Study communities were selected based on the following criteria: 

regional representation in each state for Maryland and Oklahoma; all of the District of 

Columbia; 

• 

• 

• 

• 

historical records of belt use that was included in the official usage surveys; 

local law enforcement agencies actively enforcing the seat belt law and willing to participate 

in interviews; 

accessible historical seat belt enforcement data and a willingness to provide future seat belt 

enforcement data. 

In Maryland and Oklahoma, State Highway Safety Representatives helped develop a list of 

possible study communities according to these criteria and suggested Department of Motor Vehicle 

(DMV) licensing offices in each community that would conduct driver surveys. In DC, a Public 

Safety Representative did much-the-same as the State Highway Safety Representatives did in 

Maryland and Oklahoma. 

 Maryland 

Anne Arundel, Baltimore (which does not include the city of Baltimore) and Howard Counties 

were the study communities in Maryland. These three counties are home to nearly 27% of the state's 

population. The aggregate population in the study communities is roughly 85% white, 12% black and 

3% other. The breakdown is typical across the aggregate counties in Maryland (excluding the city of 

Baltimore) (U.S. Census, 1990). 

The Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration was planning to have one DMV office (called 

MVA in Maryland) in Baltimore County and one in Howard County administer driver surveys. The 

Anne Arundel County MVA office was currently involved in other research, and therefore, a MVA 

office in nearby Beltsville was substituted. 

County Police Departments serving these communities agreed to participate in interviews. 

Discussions were held at County Police Headquarters and at some satellite offices. Citation data were 

first sought from the County police departments, but eventually these data were obtained from the 

Administrative Office of the Courts. 

 Oklahoma 

Three study communities were selected in Oklahoma. Tulsa is the largest of the three study

communities. Situated in the Northeast, Tulsa has a population of about 500,000 and nearly 16% of 

the state's population. Edmund is a smaller city located near Oklahoma City in the center of the state 

in Oklahoma County. Lawton is the largest urban area in southwest Oklahoma. This city is in 

Comanche County and is home to Fort Sill Military Base, where a large proportion of residents are 

transient. Still, the county has a permanent population of approximately 111,500 people. The racial 

6 
breakdown of the study communities and the counties they are in is 79% white, 13% black and 8% 

other. The breakdown is similar to the state's race proportions of 82% white, 7% black and 10% other 

(U.S. Census, 1990). 

The Department of Public Safety conducted driver surveys at one full-service DMV office in 

each community. The city police department in each study community allowed officers to participate 

in interviews and were willing to provide relevant citation data. 

The District of Columbia 

The total population of DC is roughly 607,000, of which 66% are black, 30% are white and 

4% are other. The city has one centralized DMV facility with one satellite operation. Both facilities 

gathered driver survey data. Metro DC Police were willing to let numerous officers with a variety of 

ranks participate in interviews. Citation data were available through the Department of Public Safety. 

Data Collection 

This study collected belt use observations, driver surveys at DMV offices, and conducted 

interviews with law enforcement officers in each site. 

Statewide Belt Use 

NHTSA provided state reported belt use rates for all 50 states, DC, Puerto Rico and US 

territories from 1993 through 1999. Rates were also weighted to represent a national rate for years 

1993 through 1998. 

Historical Seat Belt Use Data 

Annual Reports on seat belt use and survey methodologies were provided by the three 

jurisdictions. Reports dated from 1992 for Oklahoma, 1993 for Maryland and 1994 for DC. Point-bypoint use data for the study communities were isolated from statewide totals. These data were 

compared to observations of seat belt use carried out for this study. 

Observations of Seat Belt Use 

In Oklahoma and DC, organizations that regularly do statewide seat belt use surveys carried 

out observations for this study. New recruits observed seat belt use in Maryland. All observers 

received training before beginning any observations. 

This study measured belt use in the selected communities at the same observation sites used in 

annual statewide surveys (Appendix A). For most of the study communities, observation sites located 

within the jurisdiction of the study community were used with some exceptions. Because an 

abundance of observation sites existed in DC the number of sites used was reduced. Reduction of sites 

was a random process. In Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, only those sites outside of Oklahoma City

limits were included. 

In the observations conducted for this study, care was taken to follow the procedures used in 

the earlier state surveys. Historical site data including exact observation location, direction of traffic, 

the day of week and the time of day, were adhered to in so far as possible. The information was used 

to set up exactly when and where data collection activity would occur. Data collection forms and 

observation instructions were provided to observers (Appendix A) to ensure that the data collected 

would be comparable to historical belt use data. The data collection form recorded vehicle type, driver 

7 
and front outboard passenger belt use, gender and race. Observations in DC were done exactly same 

as they had been done in the past. They did not include recording vehicle type, gender, or race. 

A one-page instruction form was used by observers. In general, the form indicated: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Each observation period should be 45 minutes. 

Observed vehicle types included cars, pick-up trucks, sport utility vehicles and vans with 

no more than four tires; police, emergency and other vehicles with mounted colored lights, 

government vehicles and taxis were excluded. 

Observed occupants included drivers and outboard front seat passengers. Although 

children in a child safety seat were excluded, children not restrained by a child safety seat 

in the front seat were counted. 

On congested roadways, if traffic was moving too fast to observe every vehicle, a focal 

point up the road in the appropriate lane was selected. The focal point would indicate the 

next vehicle for observation after the last vehicle had been recorded. 

If rain, fog or inclement weather occurred, the observer waited 15 minutes to see if it 

would stop. If bad weather persisted, the observations were rescheduled. 

If construction compromised a site, the observer was told to move one block so that the 

same stream of traffic could be observed. If this was not feasible, an alternate site was 

selected. 

Seat belt use observations for this study occurred during March 1999 in Maryland and during 

April 1999 in DC and Oklahoma. 

The sampling error was estimated (95% confidence level) for the belt use rate calculated for 

each study community. The estimated error was smallest for the District of Columbia (0.4%) and 

largest for Lawton, OK (3.4%). 

DMV Driver Surveys 

DMV offices supported this study by conducting self-administered surveys of persons 

renewing or applying for driver licenses at a licensing office that serves the study community. The 

licensing office that serves Anne Arundel County, Maryland was involved in other research, and 

therefore, a licensing office in nearby Beltsville, MD was substituted. All other licensing offices for 

this study served the study communities to which they were located and all provided a full range of 

services, with the exception of Columbia Express in Howard County, MD. Driver license tests are not 

conducted in this office and first-time license applicants are absent in the data from this location. 

The survey was for all persons who qualified for a driver license, including new drivers, 

license reinstatements, and transfers from other states. Drivers completed their survey while waiting 

for their photo identification to be processed at the end of their visit to the DMV. The purpose of the 

survey was to assess public knowledge and perceptions related to: 

the new seat belt law; 

8 
• changes motorists may have made in their patterns of seat belt use; 

• 

• 

• 

• 

how vigorously they felt their police agencies enforce the law; 

likelihood that the police would stop them; 

risk from not wearing a seat belt, and; 

sources of knowledge about the new seat belt law. 

Survey forms are shown in Appendix B. The survey form used in DC differed from those 

used in Maryland and Oklahoma in that it asked motorists if they knew points can be assigned to a 

driver's record for belt law infractions in their jurisdictions. The DMVs were asked to conduct the 

survey during the time that observations of belt use were occurring. Two waves of surveys were 

completed. The first wave was conducted during March and April 1999 and the second wave during 

August 1999. 

Law Enforcement Interviews 

One law enforcement agency in each study community participated in interviews. Participants 

are listed in Table 1. Because many in the District's workforce commute from Maryland or Virginia, 

the DC Metro Police actually provide safety services for a much larger number than its residents 

during the work-day week. 

 

Table 1. Interview Participants 

Resident 

Population 

Maryland 4,781,468 

Howard County Sheriff's Dept. 187,328 

Anne Arundel County Sheriff's Dept. 427,239 

Baltimore County Sheriff's Dept. 692,134 

Oklahoma 3,144,585 

Lawton Police Dept. 90,000 

Edmund Police Dept. 69,000 

Tulsa Police Dept. 380,000 

District of Columbia 607,000 

D.C Metro Police Dept. 607,000 

Both supervisors and rank-in-file officers took part in discussion sessions. Sessions assessed 

law enforcement reactions to primary enforcement, and focused on law enforcement attitudes toward 

the new law, changes made in the enforcement of seat belt violations and the likelihood of stopping 

motorists solely for a seat belt violation. Topical guidelines for the interviews are in Appendix C. 

Interviews were held during the month of January 1999 in Maryland and DC and the first week of 

March 1999 in Oklahoma. 

 Citation Data 

Citation data were analyzed on a pre-post basis. Law enforcement agencies in each study

community agreed to attempt to provide monthly data on seat belt and all moving traffic citations 

9 
issued for a one-to-two-year period prior to the change to primary enforcement through 1998. Race 

data were requested for the citations issued. In Maryland and Oklahoma, data on seat belt citations 

issued by the Highway Patrol were also sought. The following describes the data that were obtained. 

 Maryland 

Maryland's statewide judicial records system provided a complete set of seat belt and moving 

traffic citation data. Monthly citation data were provided for 1996 through 1998 for each study

community, the State Police and statewide. Race data associated with citation totals were also 

provided. 

 Oklahoma 

Two local law enforcement agencies, Lawton and Tulsa, provided seat belt and total moving 

traffic citations by month for 1996 through 1998. Race data were not available for Lawton and Tulsa. 

Oklahoma State Police monthly citation data for 1996 through 1998 were obtained from the 

Department of Public Safety. 

 DC 

The Department of Public Works provided monthly seat belt and moving traffic citation data 

for 1996 through 1998. Race data are not collected in DC during motor vehicle stops. 

10 
IV. RESULTS 

Observations of Belt Use Results 

The national seat belt use rate showed small, but positive, gains from 1993 through 1997 when 

it reached 67% (Table 2). Each of the study states mirrored this trend showing small gains, if any, in 

the statewide usage rates. Large gains occurred in Maryland, Oklahoma, and the District of Columbia 

soon after primary enforcement laws were enacted. The national rate did not experience a similar 

increase. 

Table 2. Front Seat Occupant Restraint Use 

Year

1993

(%) 

1994 

(%) 

1995 

(%) 

1996 

(%) 

1997 

(%) 

1998 

(%) 

1999 

(%) 

Nation 66 67 68 66 67 69

Study States

Primary Laws 

Enacted Enforced 

Maryland 72 69 70 70 71 83 83 

Oklahoma 47 45 46 48 60 56 61 

Washington D.C. 62 62 63 55 64 80 78 

 Belt use in Maryland showed no improvement from 1993 to 1997, although the use rate 

continued to be about 3 percentage points above the national rate. In 1998, after the primary

enforcement law took effect, belt use measured 83% for the state, 12 percentage points higher than the 

year before the law change and 14 points higher than the national average. The use rate measured in 

1999 showed no change. Belt use in Oklahoma has been below the national use rate. Little change 

occurred in Oklahoma's use rate from 1993 through 1996, when the use rate ranged from 45 to 48%. 

Soon after primary enforcement was enacted, but before it was enforced, the statewide use rate 

measured 12 percentage points higher (60%) than the year before (48%) but still seven points below 

the national rate (67%). The use rate decreased in 1998 (56%), but was at its highest level in 1999 

(61%). Belt use in the District of Columbia did not increase from 1993 to 1996. During that time, the 

use rate stayed below the national average. Belt observations in June 1997 measured belt use at 64%, 

9 percentage points higher than when last measured. The 1997 measurement came just after primary

enforcement was passed as a law but before it had become effective. An even larger increase in belt 

use was measured in 1998 (80%) after primary enforcement became effective. In just one year, DC's

use rate rose from 64%, three percentage points below the national average, to 80%, 11 percentage 

points above the national average. 

All three Maryland study communities had large gains in belt use after primary enforcement 

went into effect (Table 3). The year preceding primary enforcement, belt use in the three communities 

ranged from 63 to 79%. Belt use ranged from 81 to 92% after primary enforcement went into effect. 

Use rates measured at over 91% in all three of the study communities in March 1999. Once primary

enforcement became effective in Oklahoma, belt use in the study communities measured higher than 

any previous year. In 1997, just before primary enforcement, belt use ranged from 50 to 58%. In 

1998, after primary enforcement had become effective, belt use ranged from 60 to 66%. Belt use was 

highest in 1999, ranging from 63 to 76%. The belt use rate for the Washington D.C. study sites 

11 
closely resembled the District-wide rate over time. Once primary enforcement became law, belt use 

improved in all study sites. 

Table 3. Percent Front Seat Occupant Belt Use 

1997

(%) 

1998 

(%) 

1999 

(%) 

Maryland 

Howard County 79 92 93 

Anne Arundel County 74 85 92 

Baltimore County 63 81 92 

Oklahoma 

Comanche County 58 66 76 

Oklahoma County 50 66 69 

Tulsa County 52 60 63 

Washington D.C. 

District Observation Sites 67 79 80 

Belt Use Demographics 

Observation data collected for this study in March and April 1999 recorded demographics of 

belt use (Table 4). Observation data collected in Maryland and Oklahoma included information on 

vehicle type, driver sex and driver race. Observation data collected in DC did not record this 

information. 

In Maryland, drivers of sport utility vehicles were more likely to be wearing a seat belt in 

comparison to drivers of passenger cars and vans (mini-vans and full sized vans). Maryland pick-up 

truck drivers buckled up less often. In Oklahoma, van drivers buckled up most often, followed by

drivers in passenger cars and sport utility vehicles. The noticeably lower proportion of pick-up truck 

drivers wearing a seat belt in Oklahoma was most likely due to the fact that these drivers are exempted 

from enforcement if the pick-up is used on a farm. Females were observed wearing a seat belt more 

often than males. A slightly higher proportion of non-whites than whites were observed wearing a seat 

belt in Maryland. In Oklahoma, the same proportion of white and non-white drivers observed had 

buckled up. 

Table 4. Percent Belt Use by Vehicle Type, Gender, and Race; 1999 

Vehicle Type Driver Gender Driver Race

Passenger 

car

Pick-up 

truck 

Sportutility Van Male Female WhiteNonWhite

Maryland 93 84 98 93 90 94 91 93

(4,945) (3,156) (584) (526) (679) (2,902) (2,042) (3,962) (982)

Oklahoma 70 52 70 73 62 72 66 66

(3,707) (2,227) (851) (232) (397) (2,225) (1,448) (3,154) (542)

12 
Motorist Knowledge and Opinions 

Department of Motor Vehicle Offices supported this study by conducting two survey waves in 

each study community. Survey questionnaires asked motorists about their knowledge, their opinion, 

and behaviors about the new seat belt law. 

Relationships were analyzed using chi-square to test statistical significance. Observable 

differences for the demographic variables age, race, gender and miles driven versus all other variables 

in the data set were examined for statistical significance at p < .01. If chi-square was not significant at 

p < .01, the statistical relationship was not mentioned below. 

Demographics of Respondents 

Table 5 shows a comparison of survey respondent age and gender to that of the licensed 

population. Young drivers under 26 years of age were over-represented and drivers age 50 years and 

older were under-represented. Overall, responses were weighted to reflect statewide distributions of 

licensed drivers by age. Table 5 shows that the proportion of male and female drivers in the survey

group closely resembled the licensed population. 

Table 5. Respondent Age and Gender Distributions (%)

Maryland Oklahoma DC

Survey

Respondents

(944) 

All Licensed 

Drivers* 

(3,346,622) 

Survey

Respondents 

(1,240) 

All Licensed 

Drivers* 

(2,278,757) 

Survey

Respondents 

(521) 

All Licensed 

Drivers* 

(356,181) 

Age

<26 20.7 11.4 38.5 15.3 19.0 10.1

26-39 35.0 33.2 29.0 28.3 43.6 39.7

40-49 23.2 22.1 23.1 19.6 18.0 20.5

50-59 11.4 15.5 6.2 14.6 12.1 13.9

60+ 9.2 17.8 3.0 22.1 6.9 15.8

Gender 

Male 47.5 49.1 49.1 48.8 47.8 51.7

Female 52.5 50.9 48.9 51.2 51.6 48.3

*1997 data from U.S. DOT

Respondents described themselves in terms of race (Figure 2). The majority of respondents in 

Maryland and Oklahoma reported being white. Black was the next most common race category. The 

majority of respondents in DC reported being black; white was second most common. Some

respondents reported themselves as other race categories. 

13 
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

White Black Other White Black Other White Black Other

percent

Maryland Oklahoma D.C.

Figure 2. 1999 Survey of Drivers; Respondent Race 

Respondents estimated the number of miles they drive in a year. A larger proportion of 

respondents in DC reported driving fewer miles than in Maryland and Oklahoma. DC respondents 

were least likely to accumulate over 15,000 miles per year; a majority drive 10,000 miles or less per 

year. Nearly one-third of respondents in Oklahoma drive over 15,000 miles; the remainder evenly

distributed across the lesser mile categories. About one-fifth of the Maryland respondents drive less 

than 5,000 miles annually. The rest were evenly distributed across the higher mile categories. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

<5,000

5,000-10,000

10,001-15,000

>15,000

<5,000

5,000-10,000

10,001-15,000

>15,000

<5,000

5,000-10,000

10,001-15,000

>15,000

percent

Maryland Oklahoma D.C.

Figure 3. 1999 Survey of Drivers; Estimated Number of Miles Driven Last Year 

14 
Self Reported Belt Use 

Most respondents indicated they "always" wear a seat belt when riding in a passenger vehicle 

(MD 85%; OK 72%; DC 78%). Responses varied by gender in all three study states (Table 6). 

Responses did not vary significantly as a function of race, age and miles driven. 

Table 6. Reported Belt Use by State and Gender (%) 

Maryland 

(n=933)

Oklahoma 

(n=1,234)

DC 

(n=518)

Male 78% χ2=21.09 66% χ2=10.68 69% χ2=14.37 

Female 89% df=1 75% df=1 83% df=1

p<.001 p<.01 p<.001

Respondents reported how much they now wear a seat belt compared to past use. Very few 

indicated a decrease in use (MD 3%; OK 4%; DC 4%). Many indicated an increase in use (MD 44%; 

OK 51%; DC 46%) or to buckling up now as much as in the past (MD 53%; OK 46%; DC 49%). 

Responses varied as a function of race in all three states. Responses also varied as a function of miles 

driven (OK and DC) and age (OK). Black and other non-white respondents were more likely than 

white respondents to indicate that they buckle up more now as compared to the past (Table 7). In 

Maryland (χ2=19.03, df=6, p<.01) and Oklahoma (χ2=32.10, df=6, p<.001), respondents driving 

10,000 miles or less per year (MD 48%; OK 59%) were more likely to wear a seat belt more now, as 

compared to those driving over 10,000 miles per year (MD 38%;OK 45%). In Oklahoma, a higher 

proportion of drivers under 40 years of age reported buckling up more now, as compared to drivers 40 

years and older (57 versus 46%) (χ2=22.77, df=8, p<.01). 

Table 7. Percent Using Belts More Compared to Past Use 

by State and Race

Maryland 

(n=910)

Oklahoma 

(n=1,205)

DC 

(n=496)

White 40% χ2=18.64 51% χ2=31.18 24% χ2=82.35 

Black 54% df=4 60% df=4 62% df=4

Other 44% p<.001 56% p<.001 28% p<.001

Most respondents strongly agreed that seat belts make trips safer (MD 71%; OK 70%; DC 

73%), some reported somewhat agreeing (MD 21%; OK 25%; DC 17%) and few disagreed (MD 8%; 

OK 5%; DC 10%). Respondent age was related to responses in Oklahoma (χ2=33.56, df=9, p<.001) 

but not in Maryland or DC. In Oklahoma, drivers age 40 years and older were more apt to strongly

agree that belts decrease crash injury compared to younger drivers (75 versus 64%). Race was related 

to responses only in DC (χ2=31.36, df=6, p<.001), where black drivers (62%) were less likely to 

strongly agree that belts make trips safer compared to white drivers (84%) or other non-white drivers 

(86%). 

Knowledge of the Belt Law 

Respondents were asked to select one of the following three statements as true: "police can 

give you a seat belt ticket: (1) only if they stop you for something else, (2) only if there has been an 

15 
accident, or (3) whenever they see you not wearing your seat belt." Most respondents correctly

selected (3), the correct response (MD 87%; OK 90%; DC 84%). Sex, age, race and miles driven were 

not significantly related to knowing the correct response. 

Most respondents believed that a seat belt ticket would result in a fine (MD 67%; OK 67%; 

DC 68%). When asked to identify their state's existing fine level, respondents in Maryland (49%) and 

DC (50%) were more likely to indicate the accurate fine amount, compared to respondents in 

Oklahoma (34%). Few respondents believed that a belt ticket could be dismissed by going to court or 

traffic school (MD 7%; OK 9%; DC 6%). DC respondents also were asked if points can be assigned to 

a license for violating the law and only 22% answered "yes," the correct answer. 

Risk of Getting a Ticket 

Respondents in Maryland (47%) indicated a high likelihood (responses of "always" and 

"nearly always") of receiving a ticket when not wearing a seat belt. Fewer indicated there was a 

modest chance (response of "sometimes") of being ticketed (MD 31%). Oklahoma respondents were 

just as likely to report there is a high likelihood (40%) as there is a modest likelihood (40%). In 

Maryland and Oklahoma, fewer indicated that they would be ticketed seldom or never (MD 22%; OK 

20%). DC driver responses were more evenly distributed (high likelihood 34%; modest 35%; not 

great 31%). Responses varied as a function of race (MD, OK and DC), miles (OK and MD), and age 

and sex (OK). Fewer whites indicated a high likelihood of getting a ticket, as compared to blacks and 

other non-whites (Table 8). More low mileage drivers (10,000 miles or less per year) in Maryland 

(51%) and Oklahoma (48%) reported there to be a high likelihood for ticketing, compared to higher 

mileage drivers (10,000+ miles per year) in Maryland (39%) and Oklahoma (39%). These results were 

significant (MD, χ2=19.29, df=6, p<.01; OK, χ2=36.80, df=6, p<.001). A larger proportion of 

Oklahoma drivers under age 50 (44%) indicated a high likelihood compared to drivers age 50+ (31%) 

(χ2=20.77, df=8, p<.01). 

Table 8. Percent that Believed there is a High Likelihood of a Belt Ticket 

by State and Race

Maryland 

(n=912)

Oklahoma 

(n=1,219)

DC 

(n=504)

White 42% χ2=13.53 38% χ2=25.03 14% χ2=71.81 

Black 50% df=4 51% df=4 42% df=4

Other 56% p<.01 56% p<.001 46% p<.001

Drivers indicated how strictly they believed the local police enforce the seat belt law. Drivers 

in Maryland and Oklahoma also indicated this for their State Police. Table 9 shows that the majority

of respondents in Maryland and Oklahoma believed local enforcement to be very or somewhat strict; 

even more believed that State Police enforcement was very or somewhat strict. DC drivers were 

evenly split in their perception of local police. 

16 
Table 9. Perceived Strictness of Enforcement by State (%) 

Maryland Oklahoma DC

Local State Local State Local

(930) (1,228) (510)

Very Strictly/ 

Somewhat Strictly 69% 71% 63% 65% 50% 

Not Very/Rarely

/Not at All 31% 29% 37% 35% 50% 

Respondent race was related to perceived local police enforcement (Table 10). A larger 

proportion of black respondents and other non-white respondents perceived very strict enforcement, 

compared to white respondents when asked to report strictness of local enforcement. 

Table 10. Percent Reporting Local Belt Enforcement 

is Very Strict by State and Race

Maryland 

(n=888)

Oklahoma 

(n=1,201)

DC 

(n=483)

White 22% χ2=31.47 19% χ2=15.86 4% χ2=71.81 

Black 40% df=4 27% df=4 24% df=4

Other 37% p<.001 28% p<.01 23% p<.001

Respondent race was also related to perceived State Police enforcement in Maryland and 

Oklahoma (Table 11). When asked to report strictness of State Police enforcement, a larger proportion 

of black respondents and other non-white respondents perceived enforcement as "very strict," 

compared to white respondents. 

Table 11. Percent Reporting State Police Belt Enforcement 

is Very Strict by State and Race

Maryland 

(n=889)

Oklahoma 

(n=1,228)

White 26% χ2=24.03 21% χ2=15.64 

Black 42% df=4 29% df=4

Other 40% p<.001 32% p<.01

Age was related to perceived local police (χ2=32.87, df=4, p<.001) and State Police (χ2=30.31, 

df=6, p<.001) enforcement in Oklahoma. Younger drivers were somewhat more likely to believe 

police enforcement was "very strict." In Oklahoma, the number of miles driven was also related to 

perceived local police and State Police enforcement. For local police, 25% of those traveling 10,000 

miles or less perceived "very strict" enforcement as compared with only 16% of those traveling over 

10,000 miles per year (χ2=33.06, df=6, p<.001). For State Police, 27% of those traveling 10,000 miles 

or less per year perceived "very strict" enforcement as compared with only 20% of those traveling over 

10,000 miles per year (χ2=24.59, df=6, p<.001). 

17 
Some respondents reported receiving seat belt tickets (Table 12). The relationship between 

gender and receiving a ticket was statistically significant in all three states (MD, χ2=25.42, df=1, 

p<.001; OK, χ2=11.19, df=1, p<.001; DC χ2=7.69, df=1, p<.01). In all three states, males reported 

receiving more tickets than females. Responses also varied as a function of miles driven in Maryland. 

Drivers logging over 15,000 miles were most likely to have received a ticket (19%), drivers logging 

between 5,000 to 15,000 miles were less likely (14%) and drivers logging < 5,000 miles were least 

likely (6%) (χ2=15.85, df=3, p<.01). Responses did not vary significantly as a function of race in any

of the study states. 

Table 12. Percent that Report Ever Receiving a Seat Belt Citation 

by State, Race, Gender and Miles Driven 

MD OK DC

Ever received a seat belt citation 14% 9% 11%

Race (not statistically significant)

White 14% 9% 7%

Black 16% 7% 13%

Other 9% 12% 12%

Gender (statistically significant) 

Male 20% 11% 15%

Female 8% 6% 7%

Miles driven (statistically significant in MD) 

<5,001 6% 6% 10%

5,000-10,000 15% 13% 12%

10,001-15,000 14% 9% 10%

>15,000 19% 8% 16%

Sources of Information 

Respondents were asked if they had seen, read or heard any messages about the seat belt law, 

where it was seen, read or heard and to recall what message was conveyed. Overall, 48% of 

respondents in Maryland, 64% in Oklahoma and 46% in DC reported that they saw, read or heard seat 

belt information. Respondents most likely saw a seat belt message on television (MD 29%; OK 37%; 

DC 19%). Reading about belts in the newspaper was second most common (MD 16%; OK 21%; DC 

17%), followed by hearing a message on the radio (MD 14%; OK 13%; DC 9%) and seeing a poster 

(MD 11%; OK 14%; DC 8%). Nearly 10% of respondents in DC reported hearing about the seat belt 

law at a police checkpoint. Few of the respondents reported receiving information from brochures or 

any other specified source. Respondents most often recalled a belt safety message (MD 40%; OK 

33%; DC 31%), an explanation of the seat belt law (MD 39%; OK 44%; DC 22%) or a message about 

enforcement (MD 20%; OK 24%; DC 48%). 

Race was related to exposure to a belt message in Maryland and DC. In Maryland, black 

respondents (58%) were more likely to have seen or heard of a belt message compared to other nonwhites (53%) and whites (41%) (χ2=19.08, df=2, p<.001). Similarly, black respondents in DC (57%) 

were more likely to have seen or heard a belt message, as compared to other non-white (31%) and 

white (22%) respondents (χ2=56.46, df=2, p<.001). In DC, as age increased, the more likely he or she 

had seen or heard a seat belt message (χ2=20.61, df=4, p<.001). 

18 
Seat Belt Enforcement 

Nearly all study communities provided some citation data. Generally, these data included total 

number of seat belt citations issued each month for 1996 through 1998. Race breakdowns in the 

citation data were requested from study communities but were not obtained from all of them. Race 

data representing all three Maryland study communities were collected. Race data representing 

Lawton and Tulsa, OK and DC were not collected. Some state level data were obtained. Maryland 

and Oklahoma were able to provide citation data for the State Police. These data included race 

breakdowns. Citation data for the entire state of Maryland were also provided, and these included race 

breakdowns. 

 

The remainder of this Section presents results on the total number of belt citations issued both 

before and after primary enforcement went into effect. Data are further broken down by race for the 

locations where available. 

 Maryland 

Maryland's Administrative Office of the Courts provided a complete set of seat belt and total 

moving traffic citation data for 1996 through 1998. The data were categorized for the entire state, the 

State Police and the individual study communities of Anne Arundel, Baltimore and Howard Counties. 

Figure 4 shows that nearly 11,000 seat belt citations were issued per month before primary

enforcement went into effect. After primary enforcement began, the number of seat belt citations 

increased. A flurry of seat belt citations were issued in the last months of 1997 immediately after the 

primary enforcement law went into effect. The number of seat belt tickets increased through the end 

of 1998, as compared with the same month in previous years. The unusually large number of seat belt 

citations issued in June 1998 reflects the Chief's Challenge. This was a statewide program of seat belt 

enforcement and education. 

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

JanMar

May

Jul

SepNov

JanMar

May

Jul

SepNov

JanMar

May

Jul

SepNov

JanMar

white

other

black

Secondary Primary

1996 1997 1998

Figure 4. Total Number of Belt Tickets Issued in the State of Maryland by Race

19 
Statewide, the increase in seat belt tickets differed by race. During the year prior to primary,

the percentage of belt tickets issued to blacks was 27%. In the year following the change, the 

percentage decreased to 26% of tickets issued. These results were statistically significant (χ2=157.23, 

df=1, p<.001). 

The Maryland State Police issued nearly 40% of all seat belt tickets in Maryland, more than 

any other enforcement agency. The number of tickets issued by the Maryland State Police increased 

immediately after primary enforcement took effect (Figure 5). The large spike in the graph, across 

spring and summer 1998, is related to Chief's Challenge and other special summer enforcement 

activities. A decline in the number of tickets issued in December 1998 was similar to declines in 1996 

and 1997. Race data show that all categories of race experienced the increase in ticket writing. For 

the year prior to primary enforcement, the percentage of belt tickets issued to blacks was 23%. In the 

year following the change, the percentage had decreased to 19% of tickets issued. The difference 

between whites and non-whites was statistically significant (χ2=278.03, df=1, p<.001). 

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

Jan

Mar

May

Jul

Sep

NovJan

Mar

May

Jul

Sep

NovJan

Mar

May

Jul

Sep

Nov

white

other

black

Se conda ry Prim a ry

1996 1997 1998

Figure 5. Total Number of Belt Tickets Issued by the Maryland State Police by Race

Figure 6 shows no sustained increase in citations by the Baltimore County Police after primary

enforcement went into effect. Although there was a boost in citations immediately after Maryland 

became a primary state, this boost was no greater than periodic boosts when secondary enforcement 

was in place. The large number of citations under Chief's Challenge issued in June 1998 was followed 

by a decrease that continued through the end of 1998. There was no statistical difference between 

ticketing by race for Baltimore County. Comparing 12 months before primary enforcement to 12 

months with primary enforcement, data indicated that the percentage of belt citations issued to blacks 

remained at 30%. 

20 
0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

JanMar

May

Jul

SepNov

JanMar

May

Jul

Sep

Nov

Jan

Mar

May

Jul

Sep

Nov

white

other

black

Secondary Primary

1996 1997 1998

Figure 6. Total Number of Belt Tickets Issued in Baltimore County, MD by Race 

The number of citations issued by Anne Arundel County Police in Maryland increased slightly

a few months preceding primary status. The slight increase continued after the change to primary into 

May and June 1998, whereupon the number soared for the Chief's Challenge program. The number of 

tickets issued then returned to a more normal level. Patterns of ticket writing, over time, in Anne 

Arundel County were similar among race categories. During the year prior to primary, the percentage 

of belt tickets issued to blacks was 17%. In the year following the change, the percentage decreased to 

16% of tickets issued. The difference was not statistically significant. 

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

Jan

M ar

M ay

Jul

S ep

N ovJan

M ar

M ay

Jul

S ep

N ovJan

M ar

M ay

Jul

S ep

N ov

w hite

other

blac k

S e cond a ry P rim a ry

1996 1997 1998

Figure 7. Total Number of Belt Tickets Issued in Anne Arundel County, MD by Race

21 
Figure 8 shows that the number of citations issued by the Howard County Police increased for 

only a few sporadic months after primary enforcement went into effect. One small increase occurred 

soon after the change to primary. Another much larger increase happened during the months of Chief's 

Challenge and another was observed for December 1998. For the months in between, fewer citations 

were issued than before the law change. During the year prior to primary enforcement, the percentage 

of belt tickets issued to blacks was 24%. In the year following the change, the percentage decreased to 

23% of tickets issued. The difference was not statistically significant. 

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

Jan

Mar

May

Jul

Sep

Nov

Jan

Mar

May

Jul

Sep

Nov

Jan

Mar

May

Jul

Sep

Nov

white

other

black

Secondary Primary

1996 1997 1998

Figure 8. Total Number of Belt Tickets Issued in Howard County, MD by Race

22 
 Oklahoma 

Oklahoma's Department of Highway Safety provided complete seat belt and all moving traffic 

citation data for the Oklahoma State Police. The citation data were organized by month for 1996 to 

1998, and specified three race categories: white, black and other. The other category for race was 

much larger in 1996 compared to data in subsequent years (Figure 9). We believe that officers coded 

race less frequently in 1996, as compared to later years, thus contributing to the larger number in the 

"other" category. 

Figure 9 shows that the Oklahoma State Police (OSP) were issuing more citations per month 

during the first nine months of 1996 than the rest of that year and the following year. The large spike 

in June 1996 is due to participation in the annual Chief's Challenge seat belt enforcement and 

education program. Two months following cessation of the program, ticket writing decreased. Ticket 

writing then remained relatively flat for the six months leading up to the law change and the six 

months after the law change. 

The Oklahoma State Police did not immediately issue more citations when the state changed to 

primary enforcement in May 1997. However, the number of citations began increasing in January

1998, continuing through the entire year. The increase in citations appeared evident across all of the 

race categories. Because of the inconsistencies in reporting race with the citation data, statistical 

analysis was not performed. 

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

JanMar

May

Jul

Sep

Nov

JanMar

May

Jul

SepNov

JanMar

May

Jul

SepNov

white

other

black

Secondary Primary

1996 1997 1998

Figure 9. Total Number of Belt Tickets Issued by the Oklahoma State Police by Race 

In Lawton, the city police issued citations at a nearly constant rate the year before Oklahoma 

went primary (Figure 10). Citations increased dramatically immediately after the city passed a local 

ordinance allowing primary enforcement in November 1998. The city participated in the Chief's 

Challenge effort, producing nearly five times the number of citations as before the law change. 

Towards the end of 1998, the city police issued nearly three times the number issued before the law 

change. Race data were not recorded. 

23 
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Jan

Mar

May

Jul

Sep

NovJan

Mar

May

Jul

Sep

NovJan

Mar

May

Jul

Sep

Nov

Se conda ry Prim a ry

1996 1997 1998

Figure 10. Total Number of Seat Belt Tickets Issued by Lawton PD, OK

The Tulsa Police Department provided data on seat belt and child restraint citations issued 

from 1996 through 1998 (Figure 11). Primary enforcement became effective in Tulsa after passage of 

a municipal ordinance in January 1999. Shortly thereafter, a small increase occurred in the number of 

citations issued, except for a decline after August 1998. Race data were not available. 

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

Jan Apr Jul Oc t Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan Apr Jul Oct

1996 1997 1998

S e conda ry P rim a ry

Figure 11. Total Number of Seat Belt/Child Restraint Tickets Issued by Tulsa PD, OK 

24 
The District of Columbia 

Washington DC provided motorists with a warning period before fully enacting primary

enforcement in October 1997. Figure 12 shows that the number of seat belt citations issued in DC 

went up and then down over the course of 1996. Belt citations increased just before the warning 

period began. As expected, belt citations were far less likely during the warning period. As soon as 

primary enforcement began, the number of citations increased dramatically and then remained higher 

than before the law existed. Race data were not available. 

Figure 12. Total Number of Seat Belt Tickets Issued by Washington DC Metro PD

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov

1996 1997 1998

Secondary

W arning*

Period Prim ary

* Does not include num ber of warning tickets is s ued

25 
Law Enforcement Interview Results 

Maryland Law Enforcement Opinions and Attitudes 

In January and February 1999, interviews were conducted in three county police departments. 

On January 11th, five group interviews were conducted at the Howard County Police Department, 

involving four supervisors and seven patrol officers. At Baltimore County Police Department, on 

January 12th, two interview groups included two supervisors and 14 patrol officers. One interview 

group was conducted at the Anne Arundel County Police Department on February 28th, consisting of 

one supervisor, two patrol officers and two crash-reconstruction experts. 

Initial Response to Primary Law 

Traffic enforcement is a high priority in all three county police departments and each placed 

special emphasis on belt enforcement in 1998. Officers in two of the departments said that the 

emphasis on seat belts comes from the top down, reflecting the priorities of the chief. One of these 

departments increased citations from about 1,500 in 1997 to 12,000 in 1998, but the increase cannot be 

attributed to the change in the law. Instead, the motivating factor was the Chief's Challenge. In the 

other department, a zero tolerance policy on seat belt violations exists throughout the year, and 

officers are ordered to write tickets rather than warnings. 

Two of the departments implemented public information and education (PI&E) campaigns 

prior to initiating primary enforcement. Officers in the third department said that they made no special 

efforts to inform the public that the law had changed, although there was a great deal of publicity in 

the media. 

None of the county police departments received any grant funding for programs to promote or 

enforce the new primary law. One of the departments indicated that they did extra promotion of the 

law. This department handed out fliers at an intersection before the law change. After the change, 

officers went back to the intersection and issued tickets for noncompliance. 

One department had a push on belt citations for the whole year of 1998 and did not notice any

increase in citation activity after the law went primary. Officers in another department commented 

that belt citations increased greatly in patrol units since the violation became primary, but less so in 

traffic enforcement units because they are concentrating on violations such as speeding and DUI and 

because belt violations are difficult to detect at night. 

Use of Primary Law 

All officers favored the change in the law that made it possible to stop motorists for a seat belt 

violation alone. One commented that the new primary law relieves the frustration of seeing unbelted 

motorists and being unable to take any action under the secondary law. 

Most officers said they enjoy the fact that the primary law can provide probable cause for a 

vehicle stop even when non-use of a seat belt is the only apparent violation. One veteran traffic officer 

commented that this is especially useful to patrol officers who are not very familiar with the motor 

vehicle code. However, others commented that it has limited usefulness as a crime prevention tool 

since most bad guy stops come at night when seat belt violations are difficult to detect. Another 

commented that seat belt use is high in the state, and other traffic violations are providing the probable 

cause for vehicle stops (e.g. speeding) because they are seen more frequently. 

26 
One officer commented that a possible downside to the primary law is that in departments 

driven by performance statistics, seat belt stops, which are relatively easy to make, can be misused by

officers to make their numbers. 

While some patrolmen reported that they were writing more seat belt citations since the 

primary law went into effect, many did not. Most of those who did not were in departments that were 

doing aggressive seat belt enforcement under the secondary law, before the new law went into effect. 

One reason given was that motorists are aware of the new law, and fewer violations are seen. One 

patrol officer, however, commented that his ability to write seat belt citations is limited only by the 

size of his docket. He says he writes about two warnings for every citation, in order to keep his case 

load manageable. 

 Motorist Reactions 

The prevailing opinion in the interview groups was that motorists are very aware that they can 

now be stopped for a seat belt violation alone, and more are buckling up. One officer, however, 

commented that seat belt use in his community was already about 80% among drivers when the new 

law went into effect; he believed it might take more than primary enforcement (making seat belt 

violations a stopping offense) to make much of a change in the remaining 20%. 

While motorists frequently react negatively toward getting a seat belt ticket, one officer said 

that negative reactions are not encountered any more frequently than for other violations. However, a 

different patrolman commented that many motorists do get angry when he stops them for seat belts 

alone. 

The Maryland police, like police elsewhere, often hear the individual liberty argument - the 

motorist is not harming anyone else and should be free to choose whether to wear a belt. Most officers 

counter that argument by pointing out the cost of injuries and fatalities which are passed on to other 

drivers in the form of higher insurance rates and higher taxes. 

Occasionally, motorists stopped for seat belt violations claim that the stop was made because 

of their status as a member of a minority. It is the policy of all three county police departments to 

enforce the belt law universally, and to avoid targeting certain groups. The police are not aware of any

organized resistance by minority groups in their communities concerning primary seat belt stops. The 

department that wrote 12,000 seat belt citations in 1998 did receive some negative media coverage for 

their aggressive enforcement, but racial bias was not an issue. 

Police Attitudes Toward Primary Law 

Almost all of the participating officers agreed that seat belt enforcement is important, but a 

supervisor in one department admitted that some officers on the force do not concur. In general, the 

safety benefits of the primary law were a more compelling motivation for enforcing it than its value as 

a crime detection tool. 

Some officers believed the fine ($25) is too low and does not reflect the seriousness of the 

violation. Others believed the fine is the correct amount. 

Some officers also mentioned other improvements they would like to see in Maryland's seat 

belt law. Several officers suggested giving points for seat belt violations, but others explained they

would be more reluctant to write citations if that were the case, since it would affect insurance rates. 

Other suggestions included less complicated language in the law, mandatory seat belt use for 

occupants other than the driver and an end to the taxicab exemption. 

27 
All three police departments have mandatory seat belt use policies for officers and other 

employees and all report almost universal compliance among officers. All of the officers said they use 

belts at all times. None of the officers accepted the validity of the excuses that were offered as reasons 

for not wearing a belt on duty. One officer commented that the idea of weapons or other equipment 

getting tangled in the belt was ridiculous. 

Perceived Effectiveness of Primary Law 

There was general agreement that the majority of motorists are now aware that they can be 

stopped for a seat belt violation alone, and the desire to avoid being stopped and ticketed has increased 

belt use to some extent. However, some officers commented that belt use was already high, and that 

changing the behavior of the remaining non-users has been difficult. 

Teenagers and the elderly seem to be the groups with lower compliance. One officer said that 

many pick-up truck drivers still are under the mistaken impression that they are exempt. 

Oklahoma Law Enforcement Opinions and Attitudes 

Supervisors and Patrol Officers were interviewed in municipal police departments serving 

Lawton, Edmond and Tulsa. At the time of the interviews (March 2-4, 1999), the state's primary seat 

belt law had been in effect for more than one year. 

The Lawton Police Department has 152 sworn officers, serving a population of about 90,000. 

All uniformed officers have traffic enforcement responsibilities, and eight traffic enforcement 

specialists report to the Uniform Division (two per day shift, with four on the night shift). A Captain 

of the Uniform Division and a Patrolman were interviewed separately.

Edmond (population 69,000) is a rapidly growing, upscale suburb of Oklahoma City. The 

police department has 83 sworn officers and all uniformed officers have traffic enforcement 

responsibilities. A group interview was conducted with one Captain, two Sergeants and two Motor 

Patrolmen. 

Tulsa is the second largest city in Oklahoma with a population of 378,000. The police 

department has 787 sworn officers. All uniformed officers have traffic enforcement responsibilities. 

Fourteen motor patrolmen carry out traffic enforcement almost exclusively. They are dispersed among 

geographically defined Uniform Divisions. Participating in the group discussion were a Major, two 

Sergeants and five patrol officers, all members of a Traffic Safety Committee. 

Initial Response to Primary Law 

None of the municipal police departments customarily write citations for violation of the state 

motor vehicle statutes, preferring to keep traffic tickets within their municipal court systems. This 

approach is different from Maryland and the District of Columbia's enforcement practices. In the three 

study sites, there was a time lag of several months from the effective date of the state statute until local 

seat belt ordinances were passed and municipal police began to enforce the ordinances. 

28 
In two of the three cities, municipal ordinances assessed fines that were higher than that called 

for in the state's $20 seat belt statute. The amount of fine is $25 in Lawton, $27 in Edmund and $20 in 

Tulsa. 

Some Oklahoma cities do not have local seat belt ordinances, and their police departments do 

not actively enforce the state law. Two large cities in which there is no ordinance and no enforcement 

are Oklahoma City and Broken Arrow (a large and rapidly growing Tulsa suburb). 

Only one of the three police departments made a concerted effort to stop motorists under the 

primary law when it first went into effect. None received any grant funding specifically for seat belt 

enforcement programs since the primary law passed, although the objectives of selective traffic 

enforcement programs funded by the Oklahoma Highway Safety Office have been broadened to 

include seat belt and child restraint violations. 

Use of Primary Law 

Traffic enforcement is said to be a high priority in all three police departments. Each of the 

departments considers traffic patrol to be a key element of their crime prevention strategy. Both 

supervisors and patrol officers recognize that the primary seat belt law gives them an additional 

probable cause to make traffic stops, which can lead to detection of DUI, drug offenses and other 

crimes. However, most do not believe that the ability to detect crimes through seat belt stops is a 

major advantage of the new law because there are sufficient grounds under previously existing traffic 

laws for probable cause to make stops of suspicious drivers. As one officer stated, "it is just one more 

tool in our tool box." 

Few of the patrolmen stop all the vehicles they see with unbelted drivers. One officer said he 

does not have enough time to stop all the violators he sees and still perform his other duties. That 

statement captures the perceptions of most of the patrol officers. 

One supervisor admitted that many officers in his department were still not making primary

seat belt stops and that the bulk of seat belt citations the department writes are the result of stops made 

for other violations. Still, some officers do not write seat belt tickets under any circumstance. When 

there are multiple violations, officers sometimes use their discretion to write seat belt tickets as an 

alternative to citations for the other violations. For example, an officer may issue a belt ticket when 

they feel a more costly citation would cause the subject undue hardship. 

 Motorist Reactions 

In two locations, patrolmen mentioned that drivers often said they were surprised when 

stopped for a seat belt violation because the adjoining community did not have a primary seat belt 

ordinance. 

There was no organized resistance to upgrading the local ordinances to correspond with the 

state's new primary law. All three police departments claim to have frequent and cordial contacts with 

leaders and advocates of minority groups in their communities and that the issue of primary seat belt 

stops creating increased potential for discriminatory harassment has not surfaced. Occasionally, a 

motorist will claim that he or she was stopped because he or she is a member of a minority or his or 

her lawyer will use it as part of a defense. None of the officers said that the complaint is more likely to 

come up on a seat belt stop than a stop for any other violation. 

29 
Interviewees explained that officers hear motorist complaints about the seat belt law when 

issuing citations. The most frequent complaint is not wearing a seat belt hurts only the driver and thus 

usage should not be required. Some interviewees said they respond to the motorist with an explanation 

that failure to wear a belt costs everyone in the form of increased taxes and insurance costs or explain 

that unbelted drivers cause crashes when they are unable to control the vehicle in emergency

situations. The majority of interviewees agreed that officers try not to argue when issuing tickets. 

Police Attitudes Toward Primary Law 

Most supervisors and patrolmen are convinced that use of seat belts is an important issue. 

Typically, they became convinced when they responded to crashes where death or serious injury could 

have been prevented if the driver and passengers had been belted. Some even refer to personal 

experiences where they feel they escaped serious injury because they were belted. 

All three police departments have policies that require officers to use their seatbelts. 

Supervisors say that non-compliance is very rare. All of the patrolmen claimed to always buckle up, 

whether on police or personal business. 

However, one patrolman admitted he had never issued a belt ticket prior to the day of the 

interview. He said that he never realized the importance of belt enforcement until viewing a video in 

connection with a special seat belt enforcement blitz conducted just before the interview. 

The prevailing belief among police officers is that the fines for belt violations are too low. 

One supervisor pointed out that the fine in his city does not cover the cost of writing and processing 

the ticket. Another group mentioned that the next higher fine for any traffic violation was $72. There 

was a general feeling that a higher fine would gain motorists' attention and that the increased desire to 

avoid a ticket would increase usage. However, a few patrolmen voiced the opinion that a higher fine 

would make officers more reluctant to write tickets, preferring to issue warnings instead. One officer's 

opinion is that a higher fine would not get more motorists to wear their belts because motorists have no 

idea what the fine is for different offenses. 

One group noted that the city ordinance classifies failure to wear a seat belt as an equipment 

violation, a classification which generally is taken less seriously by police officers and the court 

system than other unsafe driving behavior. Some officers, and even some other police departments, 

make it a policy to warn rather than cite equipment violations. The belief in this group was that the 

law would be taken more seriously if the classification could be upgraded to a moving violation. 

Perceived Effectiveness of Primary Law 

Without reference to the actual figures, only one of the three police departments claimed to be 

issuing substantially more seatbelt citations after the primary law than before. However, all explained 

that more drivers wear a seat belt because of the new law. 

Most officers were reluctant or unable to say that drivers of any particular types of vehicles or 

types of motorists were buckling up more since the law changed. The few that ventured an opinion 

guessed that seat belt compliance had improved more among blacks and drivers of pick-up trucks than 

in other groups. 

30 
DC Metropolitan Police Opinions and Attitudes 

At the time of the site visit on January 27, 1999, the DC Metropolitan Police had recently

undergone a major restructuring where, among other changes, the Traffic Division had been disbanded 

and traffic enforcement personnel had been dispersed among regional commands. 

Group participants, all veteran traffic enforcement professionals, included three Sergeants, a 

former traffic patrolman (now assigned to the Presidential Motor Unit) and a vehicular homicide 

investigator (now working out of the Detective Bureau). In one case, two sergeants were interviewed 

at the same time. All others were interviewed individually. 

Initial Response to Primary Law 

The DC Metropolitan Police have a long history of activism on the issue of occupant 

protection, endorsing and supporting the efforts of the DC Seat Belt Coalition (spearheaded by Safe 

Kids and hospital related organizations) to make the seat belt law a primary law with meaningful 

sanctions. Passage of the law did not take the police department by surprise. 

Following the passage of the primary law, there was an intensive six-month period of public 

education. The police supported this effort with sustained enforcement in which they issued as many

seat belt warning tickets as they had time to write. 

Following the warning blitz, police continued an enforcement campaign that featured two 

occupant protection check points and additional seat belt enforcement patrols. 

Use of Primary Law 

Several officers mentioned the crime prevention benefit of the new law. It gives police one 

more option to establish probable cause to make traffic stops, which sometimes result in arrests for 

criminal activity that would not otherwise be detected. One of the Sergeants described this as an 

unspoken benefit, which line officers soon figured out on their own. He cautioned that this is not a 

major benefit, because there are plenty of other legitimate reasons to make a stop when criminal 

activity is suspected. 

The perceived importance of the new law's crime prevention benefit varies regionally within 

the department. Officers in the Southeast Division use the law extensively for crime prevention 

reasons. Officers in the Northwest Division are more motivated by the idea that the law promotes 

favorable public contact, viewing seat belt enforcement as tough love. 

 Motorist Reaction 

There was little resistance to the primary seat belt law based on potential racial bias and police 

harassment. The most probable explanation for this is that the population of DC is primarily nonwhite and the police mirror the population. 

The primary law definitely achieved public attention. According to the police, overall seat 

belt compliance increased from about 48% before the new law went into effect to about 80% at peak. 

One supervisor ventured the opinion that compliance may have slipped some since the period of heavy

enforcement and public information activity ended. 

31 
Police Attitudes Towards Primary Law 

Without exception, the officers were very supportive of the new law. Several said that they

had responded to too many crashes where death and serious injuries could have been prevented if 

occupants had been restrained. One officer related his personal experience in a crash in which he 

believes his wife's life was saved by a seat belt. 

According to a motorcycle patrol officer, patrolmen are more likely to write seat belt 

violations since passage of the primary law. He explained that the prior law had no teeth as secondary

seat belt violations were frequently dismissed in the plea bargaining process and many officers just 

saw no point in writing them. Although stopping cars and writing tickets for belt violation alone is not 

a problem for most officers there are no super cops who stop every violator they see. 

Several officers said the new law made seat belt violations easier to cite. One said that now, 

when you see a problem, you can do something about it right away. You don't need to follow a 

vehicle to find probable cause to make a stop. The motorcycle patrolman said it is very easy to spot 

violations from a motorcycle while passing through stopped traffic. Although the checkpoint activities 

are helpful in raising public awareness, the primary method of enforcement is cruising major arteries, 

where patrolmen find no shortage of violators. 

The Department has a long-standing seat belt policy requiring officers and other employees to 

obey the law and compliance is very high. There are still a few officers who resist wearing seat belts, 

using the same excuses as those heard from other motorists, with the additional excuse that seat belts 

make it difficult to access their weapons in emergency situations. 

Perceived Effectiveness of Primary Law 

Although the volume of seat belt citations has increased greatly since adoption of the primary

law, several officers are concerned that the level of traffic enforcement could diminish as a result of 

necessary restructuring in the department. Less seat belt enforcement, they believe, could result in a 

lower use rate. 

32 
V. Discussion and Conclusion 

Discussion 

Strict laws supported with enforcement and publicity send a strong message that a state is 

concerned for an occupant's risk of injury and results in higher belt use. Both fear of a ticket and a 

belief in the safety value from wearing a seat belt were factors that motivated occupants to buckle up 

in Maryland, Oklahoma and DC. 

Each of the study states passed a primary enforcement law. Each law is different. Maryland's 

primary law covers nearly all vehicle types for all uses. The law has a relatively low fine of $25. 

Oklahoma has the weakest law of the three because pick-up trucks used on a farm are exempt from

penalty and Oklahoma cities do not enforce the law unless they have passed a local seat belt ordinance. 

Fines begin at $20 for unbelted occupants in those passenger vehicles covered by the law. DC has the 

strongest law of the three study locations. Virtually all passenger cars, trucks, SUVs and vans are 

covered. The fine increased from $15 to $50 and includes a two-point penalty to a driver's license. 

Shortly after enactment of primary enforcement laws, the statewide belt use rate increased more in DC 

than in Maryland or Oklahoma. 

DC passed a comprehensive seat belt law that raised the consequences for a violation. The 

Department of Public Works including the DC Metro Police Department, educated the public to the 

new law before fully implementing the law. Upon implementation, police issued belt citations at an 

increased level. That increase continued through the end of the study period. Interviewed police 

officers explained that the Metro Police made the public well aware of the change during the warning 

period. Most resident drivers (84%) reported awareness to the primary enforcement law and 

awareness of their police enforcing the law, though very few (22%) reported knowing about the 

license points penalty. Yet DC drivers (34%), less than drivers in Maryland and Oklahoma, reported 

chances were high for receiving a ticket for noncompliance and only a few (8%) reported ever 

receiving a ticket for noncompliance. A majority (73%) of DC's resident drivers reported that seat 

belts make vehicle trips safer. 

Maryland was the only study location that went directly from secondary to primary

enforcement without changing any other aspect of the law. Although citation levels increased 

statewide, most of the increase was due to an increase in State Police ticketing. The prevailing opinion 

from county police was that most motorists knew there was a primary enforcement law and that police 

stops could occur solely for not buckling up. Interviewed police officers said that motorists' desire to 

avoid a ticket was to some extent why the belt use was improving. Driver survey results indicated that 

Maryland drivers (87%) overwhelmingly knew that the police could give a ticket whenever they see an 

unbelted occupant. Nearly half (47%) believed there was a "high likelihood" of getting a ticket for 

noncompliance and 14% percent reported they had received a seat belt ticket. Many Maryland drivers 

(71%) indicated that they "strongly agree" that seat belts make vehicle trips safer. 

33 
When Oklahoma passed its new primary law, the fine level for a violation was lowered. Some

police responded that a higher fine would have more likely gotten motorists' attention; however, they

all said that a higher fine also would have made some officers more reluctant to write tickets, giving 

warnings instead. State Police ticket writing increased after the change in the law, but study

community results were mixed. Most drivers (90%) were aware that passage of the state's new seat 

belt law enabled police stops solely on the basis of seat belts, but only 40% believed there to be a 

"high likelihood" of getting a ticket for non-compliance. Many more drivers (70%) reported that seat 

belts make vehicle trips safer. The Oklahoma law does not cover vehicles used on the farm and this is 

the likely reason that occupants in pick-up trucks were belted much less (52%) than occupants in other 

vehicle types (71%). Even with a primary law, Oklahoma's use rate still lags behind the national 

average. A belt law that includes all passenger vehicle types would certainly help in Oklahoma, as 

would passage of the state's statute in all communities. 

Feelings about the crime prevention benefit from the primary enforcement law varied among 

police in the study communities. Police officers left no doubt that it has value as a crime detection 

tool, but a number of officers believed that the safety benefits of the law are more important than its 

use to establish probable cause to stop vehicles. Without a primary enforcement law for seat belts, 

there would still be plenty of other reasons for making stops. 

Results also indicated that the change to a primary enforcement law made belt use equally

common among occupants of all race categories. Greater homogeneity in belt use among varying race 

categories is encouraging in that non-whites have a history of using seat belts less often than whites. 

Results from driver surveys and citation data verify that the change to primary enforcement was 

experienced by all races. Non-whites, more than whites, reported feeling the threat of receiving a 

ticket for not wearing a seat belt, even though there was no significant relationship between race and 

those who had actually received a seat belt ticket. Additionally, citation data that identified race 

confirmed there was either no difference in non-white versus white ticketing, comparing secondary to 

primary enforcement, or a greater increase in ticketing went to whites following the change to a primary

enforcement law. 

Conclusion 

The seat belt use rate went up in Maryland (83%), Oklahoma (56%) and the District of 

Columbia (80%) with the implementation of a primary enforcement seat belt law. Motorists were 

aware of the law and indicated that they were more likely to wear a seat belt compared to the past year. 

Police were in favor of a primary enforcement seat belt law over a secondary law. In sites where race 

data on ticketing were available, more citations were issued to white motorists rather than blacks or 

other races than before, when under secondary enforcement. 

In all three jurisdictions, observed belt use was higher for females than males and for drivers 

of sport utility vehicles and passenger cars rather than pick-up trucks. In Oklahoma, belt use was 

observed at the same rate for whites and non-whites. The belt use rate was two percentage points 

higher for non-whites than whites in Maryland. In the past, the belt use rate for blacks has been 

several percentage points below that of whites. Self reported belt use from DMV surveys indicated 

that blacks and other minorities said they were wearing seat belts more with the primary law than they

had in the past year under the secondary law. 

Primary enforcement creates a more direct relationship between failure to comply and possible 

enforcement activities. One outcome has been greater homogeneity in belt use among communities 

with varying demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. This evaluation confirms that the seat 

34 
belt use rate increases with the implementation of a primary enforcement seat belt law. A primary

enforcement law seems to work best when it includes all passenger vehicle types, an adequate penalty

and strong, consistent enforcement. States wanting to boost their seat belt use rate should consider 

passing a comprehensive primary seat belt law. 

35 
VI. References 

Campbell, B.J. The association between enforcement and seat belt use. Journal of Safety Research, 

1988, 19, 159-163. 

Cosgrove, L.A. Seat Belt Use in Minority Populations. Draft Paper for the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, Washington, DC, in process. 

Evans, W.N. and Graham, J.D. Risk reduction or risk compensation? The case of mandatory safetybelt use. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1991, 4, 61-73. 

Preusser, D.F. and Preusser, C.W. Evaluation of Louisiana's Safety Belt Law Change to Primary

Enforcement. Final Report to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC, 

September 1997, available NTIS Springfield, VA, report number DOT HS 808 620. 

Standard Enforcement Saves Lives: The Case for Strong Seat Belt Laws. Manual Developed by the 

National Safety Council under Contract to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

Washington, DC, January 1999, available NTIS Springfield, VA, report number DOT HS 808 846. 

Total Use Laws: 49 states + DC, Puerto Rico, and the Territories. Traffic Safety Programs, Occupant 

Protection Division, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC, 1999. 

Traffic Tech: Public Supports Traffic Safety Laws and Their Active Enforcement. National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC, September 1996, number 136. 

Traffic Safety Facts 1998, Occupant Protection, National Center for Statistics & Analysis, National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC, 1998, report number DOT HS 808 954. 

Ulmer, R.G., Preusser, C.W. and Preusser, D.F. Evaluation of California's Safety Belt Law Change to 

Primary Enforcement. Final Report to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

Washington, DC, December 1994, available NTIS Springfield, VA, report number DOT HS 808 205. 

Ulmer, R.G., Preusser, C.W. and Preusser, D.F. Evaluation of Georgia's Safety Belt Law Change to 

Primary Enforcement. Final Report to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

Washington, DC, in process. 

Wagenaar, A.C., Maybee, R.C. and Sullivan, K.P. Mandatory seat belt use laws in eight states: a timeseries evaluation. Journal of Safety Research, 1988, 19, 51-70. 

1990 US Census Data. http//venus.census.gov/cdrom/lookup. 

36 
APPENDIX A 

HISTORIC SEAT BELT OBSERVATION DATA 

AND 

DATA COLLECTION DIRECTIONS AND FORMS

 A-1 
Historic and Current Seat Belt Use Rates, Maryland Study Communities 

Percent Belt Use* 

93 95 97 98 99 

Howard County, Maryland 

Washington Blvd. 62’ West of Hunt Club Road 53 71 61 88 90 

MD100 .03 Miles (150’) North of US 1 66 75 75 87 98

Waterloo Road at I95 81 84 81 93 95 

Waterloo Road at .03 Miles (160’) North of US 1 66 75 75 93 93 

Dorsey Run Road at Ramp 3 to MD 32 100 87 87 94 94

Old Annapolis Road at CO 75 (Centennial Lane) 50 77 75 86 92 

Baltimore National Pike Under the MD 94 Overpass 88 82 81 91 95

Anne Arundel County

Crain Highway at DP 4049 (Hidden Brook Drive) 73 74 83 94 

Aviation Blvd. Between 176 and Spur to 176 61 76 85 94 

IS 97 at Ramp 6 from MD 174 79 83 86 84 

MD 32 North of ramp from I97 82 82 89 

Solomons Island 100’ Before ramp to 50 East 67 73 82 94 

Mountain Road at Schmidts Lane 66 67 77 94 

Mountain Road 200’ East of Long Point 69 63 85 98 

Southern MD Blvd. Overlooking MD 4 89 73 86 91 

Central Avenue at MD 468 70 65 88 89 

Central Avenue East of MD 214-A 71 73 86 100 

Davidsonville Road at MT. Airy Road 76 79 88 88 

Davidsonville Road at Rutland Road 72 76 86 90 

Baltimore County, Maryland 

JFX at .25 Miles South of 695 at Ramp for 83 South 83 76 72 92 93 

Cooper Road West of Middleton Road 75 58 58 58 88 

Baltimore National Pike at Middle River Road 63 66 65 80 80 

IS 695 at US 1 ALT 79 77 70 88 95 

Baltimore Nat. Pike 25’ South of Charing Cross Road 59 65 59 79 91 

Washington Blvd. 15’ West of US ALT 1 61 66 56 73 94 

Westminster Pike 50’ from Wolf Avenue 66 73 66 79 94 

Park Heights Avenue and MD 133 (Old Court Road) 71 67 83 96 

Liberty Road 60’ from Croydeon Road 72 64 65 77 92 

US 40 35’ from Coleridge Road 62 60 57 72 90 

Philadelphia Road at CO 4095 (Ebenezer Road) 68 74 62 78 97 

Belair Road at Necker Avenue 76 61 67 82 92 

Perring Parkway at Oakleigh Road 57 63 64 76 94 

Belair Road at Northern Parkway 62 60 62 83 86 

Pulaski Highway at 68th Street (Berk) 57 60 48 84 96 

* Use rate includes the following vehicle types: passenger cars, pickup trucks, SUVs and Vans. 

Source: Maryland State Highway Administration

 A-2 
Historic and Current Seat Belt Use Rates, Oklahoma Study Communities

 Percent Belt Use* 

92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 

Comanche County, OK 

South Gate of Fort Sill 50 74 68 67 67 76 82 

47th at US 62 44 61 47 49 49 63 73 

1st at Gore 46 38 49 40 71 50 78 

SW 57th at Gore 48 100 83 54 33 74 

Ferris at Fort Sill Blvd. 52 50 55 48 29 63 71 

Oklahoma County, OK 

N Bryant at E. Waterloo 36 31 40 38 42 49 61 57 

N MacArthur at NW 122nd 46 49 70 57 38 54 63 64 

N Council at W Hefner 50 46 55 56 42 47 60 71 

SE 59th at S Bryant 23 43 56 36 46 52 67 88 

S Post Road at SE 29th 48 35 39 30 44 44 60 70 

OK 152 at S. Council Road 35 35 55 48 49 43 71 59 

US 77 at Edmund Road 49 48 47 56 44 51 67 75 

I-244 at Turner Turnpike 60 67 60 56 67 63 90 73 

NW Expressway (State Road 3) at N Council 42 48 60 54 46 50 67 57 

I-40 at S MacArthur 30 50 58 41 44 56 57 65 

US 66 at N Council 49 46 63 52 50 48 69 70 

I-244 at SW 89th 44 57 60 60 67 38 66 85 

Tulsa County, OK 

Apache at Peoria 30 35 33 20 27 33 53 51 

N 86th at Yale 50 52 49 28 36 52 69 56 

Broadway at McKinley (Sand Springs) 46 40 42 37 40 38 55 59 

Sheridan at 51st 54 63 56 47 58 58 62 62 

71st at Yale 55 66 53 62 59 66 64 73 

Mingo at 101st 53 63 55 61 57 59 72 69 

S Elm Place at W New Orleans (Broken Arrow) 43 56 50 38 51 64 63 64 

E 193rd Avenue at 51st 50 48 43 45 41 54 57 58 

Main (Broken Arrow) at Kenosha 46 50 55 48 54 60 62 57 

W 49th at MKT Railroad 30 40 29 27 32 44 51 53 

W 65th at S 41st 49 51 46 51 45 45 48 58 

21st at Memorial 56 47 43 43 42 52 61 56 

Pine at Memorial 47 44 47 36 39 40 52 57 

Pine at Lewis 36 37 27 30 28 37 52 56 

I-244 at SW Blvd 38 67 33 25 57 38 53 58 

US 51/64 at Denver 43 67 46 47 51 54 60 77 

US 169 at 106th 56 59 61 47 62 68 52 69 

US 169 at N 76th 57 57 60 54 43 58 66 54 

I-244 at SW BLVD 56 67 50 47 40 46 60 68 

I-169 at 71st 56 64 63 55 55 66 65 67 

I-44 at Harvard 38 58 51 53 55 67 70 69 

I-64 at W 49th 57 44 41 39 43 48 67 62 

State Road 51 at State Road 97 57 44 52 47 33 51 58 57 

I-64 at W 65th 31 34 33 46 41 35 42 53 

State Road 51 at State Road 151 40 46 55 50 50 29 59 61 

I-244 at Delaware 43 46 33 32 42 54 60 66 

I-244 at Garnett Road 41 52 42 37 42 54 67 55 

US 75 at OK 117 50 57 62 46 64 62 63 68 

I-244 at Detroit 46 59 49 67 55 53 65 80 

I-44 at 21st 48 43 49 33 48 39 59 59 

*Use rate includes the following vehicle types: passenger cars and pick-up trucks, 1992-1998; passenger cars, pick-up trucks, 

SUVs and Vans, 1999. All observations were done over June/July, except first wave 1999 observations were done in March. 

Source: University of Oklahoma, Department of Political Science

 A-3 
Historic and Current Seat Belt Use Rates, DC Sites 

 Percent Belt Use* 

94 95 96 97 98 99 

I-295 N at Laboratory Road Exit 101 68 77 57 72 70 83 

I-295 N at Suitland Parkway Exit 103 68 74 64 78 79 78 

I-295 S at Suitland Parkway Exit 104 70 75 64 77 71 82 

I-295 N at M Street Exit 105 66 53 57 71 76 79 

Southeast Freeway at Pennsylvania Avenue Exit 106 62 59 57 64 82 81 

I-395 Southeast at M Street Exit 107 66 60 42 59 78 82 

Suitland Parkway S at Pomeroy Road 207 68 71 76 

East Capitol Street at Minnesota Avenue 216 61 43 44 53 70 

Whitehurst Freeway at 27th Street 230 69 65 88 75 79 

K Street at 26th Street 231 60 53 66 74 79 84 

K Street at 25th Street 232 74 66 72 82 82 83 

K Street at 24th Street 233 76 73 78 77 86 78 

Pennsylvania Avenue West at 13th Street, SE 302 52 56 49 58 82 77 

Pennsylvania Avenue West at 8th Street, SW 304 53 47 43 58 86 76 

Benning Road at Anacostia Freeway 311 53 47 41 51 81 80 

Massachusetts Avenue at Belmont Road 319 77 69 67 56 85 82 

Massachusetts Avenue at 34th Street, NW 320 79 76 72 74 82 86 

16th Street at Kennedy Street, NW 328 62 62 67 82 86 81 

Connecticut Avenue at Massachusetts Avenue 329 67 59 53 65 77 78 

Connecticut Avenue at Van Ness Street 330 80 67 66 70 79 83 

Connecticut Avenue at Tilden 331 91 72 72 76 81 84 

Wisconsin Avenue at Whitehaven Parkway 332 56 68 60 66 81 81 

Wisconsin Avenue at Fessenden Street 333 73 64 78 85 84 

Bladensburg Road at New York Avenue 335 51 52 60 58 80 73 

New York Avenue at Montana Avenue 336 63 61 55 65 83 79 

New York Avenue at 4th Street, NE 337 67 57 64 61 72 81 

New York Avenue at Brentwood Road 338 58 59 60 70 80 80 

Military Road at 27th Street, NW 341 68 66 81 82 90 86 

North Capitol Street at New Hampshire Avenue 344 51 59 43 67 84 82 

Francis Scott Key Bridge before Whitehurst Freeway 70 79 64 73 81 82 

Q Street at 27th Street, NW 402 61 63 66 69 80 79 

P Street at Waterside Drive, NW 404 61 60 75 62 81 84 

Florida Avenue at 16th Street 423 56 46 57 62 81 80 

New Hampshire Avenue at "S" Street 424 64 53 58 62 79 77 

Q Street at 14th Street 425 57 54 57 57 79 75 

Portland Street at MLK Avenue 436 40 43 38 53 70 72 

Southern Avenue at 6th Street 449 44 42 47 44 65 72 

Southern Avenue at South Capitol 450 50 46 45 44 66 78 

28th Street at Dumbarton Street, NW 502 72 63 63 60 77 79 

Portland Street at 7th Street 520 35 59 36 50 68 69 

8th Street at MLK Avenue 521 39 56 35 43 67 69 

7th Street at Raleigh Street 522 36 60 58 57 70 68 

Franklin Street at 26th Street, NE 529 57 64 62 72 80 

Olive Street at 28th Street 602 56 70 24 50 72 70 

Douglas Street, NE at 22nd Street, NE 627 32 83 32 27 50 90 

*Use rate includes the following vehicle types: passenger cars, pickup trucks, SUVs and Vans. 

Source: University of the District of Columbia; Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences 

 A-4 
SEAT BELT OBSERVATION INSTRUCTIONS 

• Eligible vehicles need to have at least, but not more than, four tires and be one of the following: passenger 

automobile, pick-up truck, recreational vehicle, SUV or van. Pick-up trucks should be coded as trucks. Jeeps, 

Broncos, Blazers and other vehicles of that type should be coded as "sport utility vehicles." Eligible vehicles 

should be observed regardless of the state in which they are registered. 

• Do Not Include vehicles with more than four tires, buses, motorcycles and emergency vehicles such as 

police, fire and ambulance, vehicles with mounted colored lights, government vehicles and taxis.

• Belt use will be observed for front seat occupants only. Observe and record data for the driver and passenger

in the right front seat. If there is more than one front seat passenger, observe only the outside passenger. Do not 

record data for passengers in the back seat or for a third passenger riding in the middle of the front seat. 

• If a child is present in the front seat in a child restraint seat, do not record anything. However, children riding 

in the front seat, regardless of age, who are not in child restraint seats should be observed as any other front seat 

passenger. 

• Each observation period will last for 45 minutes. 

The following procedures will be used in conducting observations of belt use: 

1. As you observe an eligible vehicle, record the type of vehicle (car, truck, sport utility, mini-van, full size van), 

the occupants race (white or non-white), sex (male or female) and restrained by shoulder belt (yes or no) of 

the front seat occupants (driver and front seat outside passenger only). 

2. If you notice a lap belt in use without a shoulder belt, it should be recorded as not restrained. Only shoulder 

belts are to be counted. 

3. If the vehicle is equipped with shoulder belts but the person has the shoulder strap under his or her arm or 

behind the back, this should be recorded as not restrained. 

4. Observe traffic in the outside most lane, and in the direction specified, through the whole 45-minute 

observation time period (unless otherwise stated on the observation location form). 

5. In many situations, it will be possible to observe every vehicle in the designated lane. However, if traffic is 

moving too fast to observe every vehicle, you should determine a focal point up the road in the appropriate 

lane. Observe the next vehicle to pass the focal point after the last vehicle has been coded. 

6. Do not observe if it is raining, or if there is fog or inclement weather. If you arrive at a site and it begins to 

rain, do not collect data in the rain. Find a dry place and wait 15 minutes to see if the rain stops. If the rain 

stops, start observing again and extend the observation period to make up for the time missed. Otherwise, 

you will have to reschedule the site. (Note: rain means real rain, not light fog, or drizzle, or mist). 

7. If more than one data sheet is used, staple the sheets together at the end of the observation period and note 

the number of sheets used at the bottom of the data form. 

8. It may happen that the site you are assigned is seriously compromised due to construction. If this occurs you 

may move one block in any direction on the same street such that you are observing the same stream of 

traffic that would have normally been observed had there been no construction. If moving one block will not 

solve the problem, then do not observe. An alternate site will be selected and observed on some future date. 

 A-5 
SEAT BELT USE OBSERVATIONS - DATA COLLECTION FORM 

SITE ID NUMBER: __________ LOCATION:____________________________________________________ 

(Street) (Cross Street or other landmark) 

DATE: _______ - _______ - _______ DAY OF WEEK: _____________ 

 WEATHER CONDITION: 

TRAFFIC DIRECTION (Circle one): N S E W 1 Clear / Sunny 4 Fog 

2 Light Rain 5 Clear But Wet 

START TIME:_____________ (Observation period will last exactly 45 minutes) 3 Cloudy

 DRIVER PASSENGER DRIVER PASSENGER Vehicle Type

C = Car 

T = Pick-up 

S = SUV 

MV = Mini-van 

FV = Full Van

Race 

W = White

N = Non-white 

U = Unk

Sex

M = Male 

F = Female

U = Unk

Use 

Y = Yes

N = No 

U = Unk

Race 

W = White

N = Non-white 

U = Unk

Sex

M = Male 

F = Female

U = Unsure 

Use 

Y = Yes

N = No 

U = Unk

Vehicle Type

C = Car 

T = Pick-up 

S = SUV 

MV = Mini-van 

FV = Full Van

Race 

W = White

N = Non-white 

U = Unk

Sex

M = Male 

F = Female

U = Unk

Use 

Y = Yes

N = No 

U = Unk

Race 

W = White

N = Non-white 

U = Unk

Sex

M = Male 

F = Female

U = Unk

Use 

Y = Yes

N = No 

U = Unk

1 36 

2 37 

3 38 

4 39 

5 40 

6 41 

7 42 

8 43 

9 44 

10 45 

11 46 

12 47 

13 48 

14 49 

15 50 

16 51 

17 52 

18 53 

19 54 

20 55 

21 56 

22 57 

23 58 

24 59 

25 60 

26 61 

27 62 

28 63 

29 64 

30 65 

31 66 

32 67 

33 68 

34 69 

35 70 

Page:_______ of _______ 

 A-6 
APPENDIX B 

DMV/OMV/DPS SURVEY FORMS 

AND 

SURVEY RESULTS

B-1 
Driver Survey: State of Maryland 

MVA is assisting in a study of Maryland's Seat Belt Law. Your answers to the following questions are voluntary and 

anonymous. Please put the completed survey in the drop box when you pick-up your photo license.

1. Your sex: G Male G Female

2. Your age: G Under 21 G 21-25 G 26-39 G 40-49 G 50-59 G 60 Plus

3. Your race: G White G Black G Hispanic G Asian G Native American G Other 

4. Your Zip Code: _______________________ 

5. About how many miles did you drive last year?

G Less than 5,000 G 5,000 to 10,000 G 10,001 to 15,000 G More than 15,000 

6. How often do you use seat belts when you drive or ride in a car, van, sport utility vehicle or pick-up?

G Always G Nearly always G Sometimes G Seldom G Never 

7. Compared to the last couple of years, would you say that you now wear your seat belt:

G Much less often G Less often G About the same G More often G Much more often 

8. Which one of the following do you think is true:

G Police can give you a seat belt ticket only if they stop you for something else. 

G Police can give you a seat belt ticket only if there has been an accident. 

G Police can give you a seat belt ticket whenever they see you not wearing your seat belt. 

9. What do you think the chances of getting a ticket are if you don't wear your seat belt?

G Always G Nearly always G Sometimes G Seldom G Never 

10. Do you think the Maryland State Police enforces the seat belt law:

G Very strictly G Somewhat strictly G Not very strictly G Rarely G Not at all 

11. Do you think your county/local police department enforces the seat belt law:

G Very strictly G Somewhat strictly G Not very strictly G Rarely G Not at all 

12. If you were to get a seat belt ticket, what would happen (Check all that apply):

G Could get dismissed by going to court or traffic school 

G Pay a fine 

How much? G $10-$15 G $20-$25 G $30-$35 G $50 or more 

G Don't know what would happen 

13. Have you ever gotten a ticket for not wearing your seat belt? G Yes G No 

14. How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following:

You will be hurt less in an accident if you are wearing your seat belt.

G Strongly agree G Somewhat agree G Somewhat disagree G Strongly disagree 

15. Have you recently read, seen or heard anything about Maryland's seat belt law?

G Yes

If yes, where did you see or hear about it? (Check all that apply): 

G Newspaper G Radio G TV G Poster G Brochure G Police checkpoint G Other 

If yes, what did it say? _________________________________________________________________ 

G No 

B-2 
Driver Survey: Washington DC 

Motor Vehicle Services is assisting in a study of the DC=s Seat Belt Law. Your answers to the following questions are 

voluntary and anonymous. Please put the completed survey in the drop box when you pick-up your photo license.

1. Your sex: G Male G Female

2. Your age: G Under 21 G 21-25 G 26-39 G 40-49 G 50-59 G 60 Plus

3. Your race: G Black G White G Hispanic G Asian G Native American G Other 

4. Your Zip Code: _______________________ 

5. About how many miles did you drive last year?

G Less than 5,000 G 5,000 to 10,000 G 10,001 to 15,000 G More than 15,000 

6. How often do you use seat belts when you drive or ride in a car, van, utility vehicle or pick-up?

G Always G Nearly always G Sometimes G Seldom G Never 

7. Compared to the last couple of years, would you say that you now wear your seat belt:

G Much less often G Less often G About the same G More often G Much more often 

8. Which one of the following do you think is true:

G Police can give you a seat belt ticket only if they stop you for something else. 

G Police can give you a seat belt ticket only if there has been an accident. 

G Police can give you a seat belt ticket whenever they see you not wearing your seat belt. 

9. What do you think the chances of getting a ticket are if you don't wear your seat belt?

G Always G Nearly always G Sometimes G Seldom G Never 

10. Do you think the local police department enforces the seat belt law:

G Very strictly G Somewhat strictly G Not very strictly G Rarely G Not at all 

11. If you were to get a seat belt ticket, what would happen (Check all that apply):

G Could get dismissed by going to court or traffic school 

G Pay a fine 

How much? G $10-$15 G $20-$25 G $30-$35 G $50 or more 

G Receive points on your license 

G Don't know what would happen 

12. Have you ever received a ticket for not wearing your seat belt? G Yes G No 

13. How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following:

You will be hurt less in an accident if you are wearing your seat belt.

G Strongly agree G Somewhat agree G Somewhat disagree G Strongly disagree 

14. Have you recently read, seen or heard anything about the District of Columbia=s seat belt law?

G Yes

If yes, where did you see or hear about it? (Check all that apply): 

G Newspaper G Radio G TV G Poster G Brochure G Police checkpoint G Other 

If yes, what did it say? ________________________________________________________________ 

G No 

B-3 
Driver Survey: State of Oklahoma

The Oklahoma Department of Public Safety is assisting in a study of Oklahoma=s seat belt law. Your answers to the 

following questions are voluntary and anonymous. Please put your completed survey in the drop box when finished.

1. Your sex: G Male G Female

2. Your age: G Under 21 G 21-25 G 26-39 G 40-49 G 50-59 G 60 Plus

3. Your race: G White G Black G Hispanic G Native American G Asian G Other 

4. Your Zip Code: _______________________ 

5. About how many miles did you drive last year?

G Less than 5,000 G 5,000 to 10,000 G 10,001 to 15,000 G More than 15,000 

6. How often do you use seat belts when you drive or ride in a car, van, sport utility vehicle or pick-up?

G Always G Nearly always G Sometimes G Seldom G Never 

7. Compared to the last couple of years, would you say that you now wear your seat belt:

G Much less often G Less often G About the same G More often G Much more often 

8. Which one of the following do you think is true:

G Police can give you a seat belt ticket only if they stop you for something else. 

G Police can give you a seat belt ticket only if there has been an accident. 

G Police can give you a seat belt ticket whenever they see you not wearing your seat belt. 

9. What do you think the chances of getting a ticket are if you don't wear your seat belt?

G Always G Nearly always G Sometimes G Seldom G Never 

10. Do you think the State Police enforce the seat belt law:

G Very strictly G Somewhat strictly G Not very strictly G Rarely G Not at all 

11. Do you think local law enforcement enforces the seat belt law:

 G Very strictly G Somewhat strictly G Not very strictly G Rarely G Not at all 

12. If you were to get a seat belt ticket, what would happen (Check all that apply):

G Could get dismissed by going to court or traffic school 

G Pay a fine 

How much? G $10-$15 G $20-$25 G $30-$35 G $50 or more 

G Don't know what would happen 

13. Have you ever received a ticket for not wearing your seat belt? 

 G Yes G No 

14. How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following:

You will be hurt less in an accident if you are wearing your seat belt.

G Strongly agree G Somewhat agree G Somewhat disagree G Strongly disagree 

15. Have you recently read, seen or heard anything about Oklahoma=s seat belt law?

G Yes

If yes, where did you see or hear about it? (Check all that apply): 

G Newspaper G Radio G TV G Poster G Brochure G Police checkpoint G Other 

If yes, what did it say? _______________________________________________________________ 

G No

B-4 
Driver Survey Results 

Self Reported Belt Use by State

CountUSE

Row Pct Always < Always Row 

Col Pct 1 2 Total 

STATE 1 394 124 518

DC 76.1 23.9 19.3

 19.3 19.4 19.3 

2 870 364 1234

OK 70.5 29.5 46.0

 42.5 57.0 46.0 

3 782 151 933

MD 83.8 16.2 34.7

 38.2 23.6 34.7 

Column 2046 639 2685

Total 76.2 23.8 100.0

Using Belts More Now than in Past by State

CountUSE

Row Pct More Same Less Row 

Col Pct 1 2 3 Total 

STATE 1 230 245 21 496

DC 46.4 49.4 4.2 19.0

 18.5 19.2 22.6 

2 610 550 45 1205

OK 50.6 45.6 3.7 46.2

 49.0 43.2 48.4 

3 404 479 27 910

MD 44.4 52.6 3.0 34.9

 32.5 37.6 29.0 

Column 1244 1274 93 2611

Total 47.6 48.8 3.6 100.0

B-5 
Driver Survey Results 

Perceived Strictness of Local Police by State

CountSTRICTNESS

Row Pct VerySome RareNone Row 

Col Pct 1 2 Total 

STATE 1 257 254 511

DC 50.3 49.7 19.1

 15.4 25.3 

2 770 460 1230

OK 62.6 37.4 46.1

 46.2 45.8 

3 640 290 930

MD 68.8 31.2 34.8

 38.4 28.9 

Column 1667 1004 2671

Total 62.4 37.6 100.0

Perceived Strictness of State Police by State

CountSTRICTNESS

Row Pct VerySome RareNone Row 

Col Pct 1 2 Total 

STATE 2 798 430 1228

OK 65.0 35.0 56.9

 54.6 61.8 

3 664 266 930

MD 71.4 28.6 43.1

 45.4 38.2 

Column 1462 696 2158

Total 67.7 32.3 100.0

B-6 
Driver Survey Results 

Perceived Chances of Getting a Belt Ticket by State

CountCHANCES

Row Pct High Medium Low Row 

Col Pct 1 2 3 Total

STATE 1 168 183 164 515

DC 32.6 35.5 31.8 19.4

15.2 19.5 26.5

2 520 463 244 1227

OK 42.4 37.7 19.9 46.2

47.1 49.4 39.5

3 415 291 210 916

MD 45.3 31.8 22.9 34.5

37.6 31.1 34.0

Column 1103 937 618 2658

Total 41.5 35.3 23.3 100.0

Ever Received a Belt Ticket by State

CountTICKET

Row Pct Yes No Row 

Col Pct 1 2 Total 

STATE 1 55 452 507

DC 10.8 89.2 19.1

 19.2 19.1 

2 106 1116 1222

OK 8.7 91.3 46.1

 36.9 47.2 

3 126 796 922

MD 13.7 86.3 34.8

 43.9 33.7 

Column 287 2364 2651

Total 10.8 89.2 100.0

B-7 
Driver Survey Results 

Read/Seen/Heard a Belt Message Recently by State

CountREAD/SEEN/HEARD

Row Pct Yes No Row 

Col Pct 1 2 Total 

STATE 1 238 280 518

DC 45.9 54.1 19.3

 16.2 23.0 

2 785 449 1234

OK 63.6 36.4 46.0

 53.5 36.8 

3 443 490 933

MD 47.5 52.5 34.7

 30.2 40.2 

Column 1466 1219 2685

Total 54.6 45.4 100.0

Knows the Primary Law by State

CountKNOWS LAW 

Row Pct Yes No Row 

Col Pct 1 2 Total 

STATE 1 422 80 502

DC 84.1 15.9 19.1

 18.2 25.2 

2 1097 122 1219

OK 90.0 10.0 46.3

 47.4 38.4 

3 796 116 912

MD 87.3 12.7 34.6

 34.4 36.5 

Column 2315 318 2633

Total 87.9 12.1 100.0

B-8 
Driver Survey Results 

Seat Belts Make a Trip Safer by State

CountTRIP SAFER 

Row Pct Strong Some Disagre Row 

Col Pct 1 2 3 Total

STATE 1 378 86 54 518

DC 73.0 16.6 10.4 19.3

19.8 14.7 28.9

2 870 306 58 1234

OK 70.5 24.8 4.7 46.0

45.5 52.2 31.0

3 664 194 75 933

MD 71.2 20.8 8.0 34.7

34.7 33.1 40.1

Column 1912 586 187 2685

Total 71.2 21.8 7.0 100.0

B-9 
B-10 
APPENDIX C 

TOPICAL INTERVIEW GUIDES FOR POLICE

C-1 
POLICE SUPERVISOR QUESTIONS 

• 

• 

Description of Department:

Overall, about how many traffic citations does the Department issue (estimate, get documentation later if 

available) 

Traffic unit? How many sworn? how/when deployed? fully dedicated or on call for other duties? 

DUI unit? Strength? Any other specialized traffic units? 

Regular patrol units? Strength? Extent they are involved in traffic? 

Does Department have belt policy while on-duty?

Belt Enforcement 

When/how did you first learn of the primary law?

What, if any, information did you receive from the state? Other? 

What were your officers told (roll call? written?) 

What do you think of the new law?

Was there a formal warning period when the law changed? How long? 

Has the Department conducted any special belt enforcement activities? Will they continue? 

How are your officers using the primary law? Has it led to changes in traffic enforcement? 

Has there been any motorist reaction to the law? What? 

Do you think belt use in your community has changed since the primary law? More/less? 

Who is buckling up now that didn’t before? 

 

C-2 
POLICE OFFICER QUESTIONS 

• 

• 

From Each Officer 

Number of years on the force 

Duty assignment past twelve months 

Percent of time devoted to traffic 

How often do you personally wear your seat belt on-duty? Off duty?

From Group 

When and how did you first learn of the primary law?

What, if any, information did you receive from the Department? 

What do you think of the primary law?

Should issue warning, not citations? 

Should have stayed secondary?

Should be vigorously enforced as primary?

Fines too low? Too high? Points? About right? 

Are there any differences in how you enforce belts now as a primary law compared to how you enforced under 

secondary?

Are there benefits and/or drawbacks of a primary law in terms of traffic enforcement? 

Personally, are you writing more or less belt tickets now (more than before the law change)? 

Has there been any motorist reaction to the law thus far? What? 

Do you think belt use in your community has changed since the primary law? More/Less? 

Who is buckling up now that didn’t before?

C-3