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

U.S. Department

of Transportation

National Highway

Traffic Safety

Administration

DOT HS 809 713

March 2004

Technical Report

Safety Belt Use in 2003 –

Use Rates in the States and 

Territories

National Center for Statistics and Analysis
Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No.

DOT HS 809 713 

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

5. Report Date

March 2004

4. Title and Subtitle

Safety Belt Use in 2003 – Use Rates in the States and Territories

6. Performing Organization Code

NPO-101

7. Author(s)

Glassbrenner, Donna, Ph.D.

8. Performing Organization Report No.

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

Mathematical Analysis Division, National Center for Statistics and Analysis

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

U.S. Department of Transportation

NPO-101, 400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590

11. Contract or Grant No.

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

NHTSA Technical Report

12. Sponsoring Ag ency Name and Address

Mathematical Analysis Division, National Center for Statistics and Analysis

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

U.S. Department of Transportation

NPO-101, 400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

Abstract

This paper presents and analyzes the level of safety belt use in 48 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico 

in 2003. We identify states that improved their use rates the most, and examine rates in the light of two key factors 

affecting belt use – state belt laws and campaigns conducted to get more people to buckle up. We also explain the 

common methodology followed by the state surveys, a set of criteria established by NHTSA to ensure statistical 

accuracy and consistency. 

In general, the states’ use rates are substantially higher in 2003, indicating the success of the unprecedented level of 

effort to raise use. An additional state (Oregon) reached the 90% milestone, joining three other states with use rates 

in the 90’s, and seven states converted a quarter or more of their nonusers to users in the period 2002-2003. 

17. Key Words

safety belts, state surveys, Section 157

18. Distribution Statement

Document is available to the public through the National 

Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161

http//:www.ntis.gov

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page)

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

21

22. Price

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized
 National Center for Statistics and Analysis, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, DC 20590 i

TABLE of CONTENTS

1. Executive Summary................................................................................................................ 1

2. The 2003 Click It or Ticket Campaign ................................................................................... 1

3. The Best and Worst States in 2003 ......................................................................................... 2

4. High Use Rates Associated with Strong Enforcement Laws.................................................. 5

5. Survey Methodologies ............................................................................................................ 5

6. Belt Use Nationwide ............................................................................................................... 7

References....................................................................................................................................... 9

Appendix....................................................................................................................................... 10
 National Center for Statistics and Analysis, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, DC 20590 ii

TABLE of FIGURES

Table 1: State Safety Belt Use Rates in 2002 and 2003 ................................................................ 4

Figure 1: 2003 Use Rates in States with Primary Belt Laws, Compared to Those with Secondary 

Laws................................................................................................................................. 5

Figure 2: Survey Criteria from Section 157, Title 23, U.S. Code................................................... 7

Figure 3: Belt Use in the U.S., 1994 - Present................................................................................ 8

Table 2: Safety Belt Use Rates and Conversion Rates Since Section 157 Took Effect.............. 10

Table 3: Key Provisions of State Belt Use Laws as of January 20041........................................ 13
National Center for Statistics and Analysis 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 1

1. Executive Summary

Reflecting the success of the 2003 Click It or Ticket campaign, several states and territories saw large 

increases in safety belt use in 2003. Arizona led the increases, converting nearly one half of its nonusers 

to users in a single year. Alaska, Georgia, and Indiana also saw large increases in use. States with 90% 

use or higher generally maintained this high level of usage, and Oregon joined their ranks, achieving 90% 

use for the first time in 2003. Among the states and territories that submitted use rates, rates ranged from 

50% (in New Hampshire) to 95% (in Washington State). These results are from observational surveys of 

belt use conducted in 48 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico that have been certified by the 

National Center for Statistics and Analysis in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA) for statistical accuracy and consistency.

Two factors that play key roles in a state’s use rate are the state’s belt law and any campaign conducted in 

the state to raise use. Use rates in states with stronger, so called primary, laws are generally about 11 

percentage points higher than those in states with weaker (secondary) laws. This pattern has been seen 

for a number of years, and continues to be demonstrated with the 2003 belt rates. Two states (Illinois and 

Delaware) strengthened their laws to primary status in 2003, one of whose 2003 rate was measured when 

the stronger law was in place. This state (Illinois) saw a substantial increase in use from 74% in 2002 to 

80% in 2003. See Section 4 for more information on primary and secondary laws.

The other key factor, the belt campaign conducted to raise use, varied in extent from state to state, but the 

2003 campaigns were generally much more extensive than the 2002 campaigns. More states ran

campaigns and their campaigns involved much greater amounts of the two main components of any belt 

campaign – publicity and enforcement. In fact, the 2003 campaigns were the largest ever conducted 

(Solomon et al., 2002; Solomon et al., 2003). Use rates indicate that the increased effort to get the public 

to buckle up was a success, with most states showing increases in use between the two years and with the 

nation experiencing an unprecedented 4-point jump in use from 75% in 2002 to 79% in 2003

(Glassbrenner, September 2003).

It is estimated that safety belts save the lives of more than 14,000 motorists each year, and save about $50 

billion in medical care, lost productivity and other injury related costs nationwide (Blincoe et al., 2002; 

Traffic Safety Facts, undated). Each percentage point increase in use saves about 270 additional lives 

nationwide. Thus low use rates have serious consequences, and there are considerable benefits to getting 

more motorists to buckle up.

This paper is organized as follows. We describe the 2002 and 2003 belt campaigns in Section 2, identify 

the best and worst performing states in Section 3, discuss state belt laws in Section 4, present the survey 

methodologies in Section 5, and discuss belt use nationwide in Section 6. The Appendix contains all state 

rates from 1998-2003, and summaries of the states’ belt laws.

2. The 2003 Click It or Ticket Campaign

Between May 19 and May 26, 2003, NHTSA and state highway safety offices conducted the largest ever 

campaign to increase the public’s use of safety belts, the 2003 Click It or Ticket Mobilization. The 

campaign involved the dual approach of highly visible enforcement of belt laws by police combined with 

advertising in major media outlets. Police in 12,000 law enforcement agencies in 43 states, the District of 

Columbia, and Puerto Rico conducted checkpoints, writing more than 500,000 tickets combined. 
National Center for Statistics and Analysis 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 2

NHTSA spent $8 million on 500 television and 350 radio advertisements, warning the public that they 

may be ticketed and fined for nonuse. States spent an additional $16 million on 89,000 television and 

93,000 radio ads (Tyson, 2003). See (Solomon et al., 2003) for more information on the national and state 

campaigns. 

The 2003 campaign was substantially more extensive than the 2002 campaign. In 2002, 10 states 

conducted the combination of intense publicity and highly visible enforcement activity that NHTSA calls 

the Click It or Ticket Model. Many states followed at least part of the Model, with a total of 41 states 

spending $5 million combined to advertise their campaigns and 18 states issuing a total of 250,000 tickets 

for belt nonuse (Solomon et al., 2002). That is, in 2003 more than four times the number of states (and 

territories) followed the Click It or Ticket Model, states spent more than three times more money on 

advertising, and states reported twice as many tickets being issued. 

The campaign’s success is indicated by the state use rates displayed in Table 1, with increased usage seen 

in 37 states and territories. (If one considers the next decimal place then there are 41 increases, 6

decreases, and no unchanged rates.) Nationwide, use jumped from 75% in 2002 to 79% in 2003 

(Glassbrenner, September 2003).

There is some evidence suggesting that use rates rise substantially during a campaign and decrease

slightly after the campaign ends, resulting in a net gain (Solomon et al., 1999). Use rates in some states 

might have since dropped slightly from the 2003 rates in Table 1, since most of the surveys in this table 

were conducted shortly after the Click It or Ticket campaign ended. However, the 2002-2003 increases in 

use reflect actual annual increases, and not the larger temporary jumps often seen between a campaign’s 

beginning and end, since the 2002 rates were for the most part also obtained shortly after a campaign 

ended. Contact state highway safety offices for information on when individual surveys were conducted. 

3. The Best and Worst States in 2003

Improvement in use rates is best assessed by the percentage reduction in nonuse, which we call the 

“conversion rate”. To illustrate, the conversion rate for Alaska in 2003 was 38%, since this state 

increased its use from 66% in 2002 to 79% in 2003. That is, nonuse in Alaska declined from 34% in 

2002 to 21% in 2003, a 38% reduction. 

Intuitively, the conversion rate is roughly the percentage of nonusers that were converted to users. That 

is, about 38% of Alaskans who did not use belts in 2002 were “converted” to using belts in 2003, a 

substantial accomplishment. This interpretation would be correct if the two Alaskan use rates were the 

percentages of the motorist population that used belts to some specified degree (e.g., all the time, or half 

the time). However the use rates in Table 1 are not quite this, but rather are snapshots of use on Alaskan 

roads. For example, 79% of motorists that were on Alaskan roads at some particular moment in 2003 

were using belts. That is, interpreting the reduction in nonuse of the rates in Table 1 as the percentage of 

nonusers that were converted to users is not strictly correct, but the interpretation provides an intuitive 

means to assess the improvements of the states. (The reader should also note when interpreting 

conversion rates that although the term “conversion” suggests a permanent change in behavior, the use 

rates in Table 1 may decline over time.)

Conversion rates provide better measures of improvement than increases in use. A 5 percentage point 

increase from 90% use (i.e. increasing use from 90% to 95%) represents a substantially greater

accomplishment than the same increase from 50%, because the increase from 90% requires changing the 

behavior of a much larger proportion of nonusers. Conversion rates reflect these disparate

accomplishments: The conversion rate corresponding to increasing use from 90% to 95% is 50%, while 
National Center for Statistics and Analysis 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 3

that for the increase from 50% to 55% use is 10%, indicating that increasing use from 90% to 95% is 

about five times as difficult as increasing use from 50% to 55%. 

As mentioned in the introduction, Arizona, Alaska, Georgia, and Indiana saw the greatest improvement in 

2003, with each state converting at least 35% of its nonusers. In addition, Utah, Iowa, and Washington 

State converted at least a quarter of their nonusers. Conversely, although its use rates are high, Puerto 

Rico saw the greatest deterioration in use, with a conversion rate of –44%. Puerto Rico dropped from 

91% use in 2002 to 87% in 2003. 

California, Hawaii, Oregon, and the State of Washington had the highest use rates in 2003, with each state 

at or above 90% use. Washington State had the highest rate of 95% use, while New Hampshire had the 

lowest use rate, at 50% use. 

These assessments are based on use rates that were certified by NHTSA as compliant with criteria 

established in Section 157 of Title 23, U.S. Code, which ensure statistical accuracy and consistency. (See 

Figure 2 for the criteria.) Maine, New Hampshire, Wyoming and the U.S. territories not in Table 1 did 

not report 2003 rates to NHTSA. However, under a contract jointly funded by NHTSA and the New 

Hampshire Highway Safety Agency, Preusser Research Group conducted an observational survey of 

safety belt use in New Hampshire following the May 2003 Click It or Ticket campaign. The result of that 

survey appears in Table 1. U.S. territories not in Table 1 (such as Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands) are 

not eligible for the incentives that Section 157 may provide for reporting rates.

In 2002, compliant rates were not submitted for Maine, New Hampshire, and the territories not in Table 1. 

Minnesota reported a 2002 rate that appeared in (Glassbrenner, May 2003) but was later found not to be 

compliant with the Section 157 criteria. 
National Center for Statistics and Analysis 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 4

Table 1: State Safety Belt Use Rates in 2002 and 2003

Source: State safety belt surveys conducted in accordance with Section 157 of Title 23, U.S. Code.

1 Rates in states with primary belt enforcement laws appear in boldface. If the state had a primary law in both years, 

then the conversion rate appears in boldface as well. An asterisk denotes that no rate compliant with Section 157 

was submitted to NHTSA.

2

The conversion rate is the percentage reduction in belt nonuse.

3 Delaware had a secondary law at the time its 2003 use rate of 75% was obtained. The primary law in Illinois was 

in effect when its 2003 use rate of 80% was obtained. 

4 Under a contract jointly funded by NHTSA and the New Hampshire Highway Safety Agency, Preusser Research 

Group conducted an observational survey of safety belt use in New Hampshire following the May 2003 Click It or 

Ticket campaign. The use rate from this survey was 49.6%.

State or Territory 20021

20031 Conversion 

Rate1,2 State or Territory 20021

20031 Conversion 

Rate1,2

Alabama 79% 77% -10% Montana 78% 80% 9%

Alaska 66% 79% 38% Nebraska 70% 76% 20%

Arizona 74% 86% 46% Nevada 75% 79% 16%

Arkansas 64% 63% -3% New Hampshire4* 50%4

California 91% 91% 0% New Jersey 81% 81% 0%

Colorado 73% 78% 19% New Mexico 88% 87% -8%

Connecticut 78% 78% 0% New York 83% 85% 12%

Delaware371% 75% 14% North Carolina 84% 86% 13%

District of Columbia 85% 85% 0% North Dakota 63% 64% 3%

Florida 75% 73% -8% Ohio 70% 75% 17%

Georgia 77% 85% 35% Oklahoma 70% 77% 23%

Hawaii 90% 92% 20% Oregon 88% 90% 17%

Idaho 63% 72% 24% Pennsylvania 76% 79% 13%

Illinois374% 80% 23% Rhode Island 71% 74% 10%

Indiana 72% 82% 36% South Carolina 66% 73% 21%

Iowa 82% 87% 28% South Dakota 64% 70% 17%

Kansas 61% 64% 8% Tennessee 67% 69% 6%

Kentucky 62% 66% 11% Texas 81% 84% 16%

Louisiana 69% 74% 16% Utah 80% 85% 25%

Maine * * Vermont 85% 82% -20%

Maryland 86% 88% 14% Virginia 70% 75% 17%

Massachusetts 51% 62% 22% Washington 93% 95% 29%

Michigan 83% 85% 12% West Virginia 72% 74% 7%

Minnesota * 79% Wisconsin 66% 70% 12%

Mississippi 62% 62% 0% Wyoming 67% *

Missouri 69% 73% 13% Puerto Rico 91% 87% -44%
National Center for Statistics and Analysis 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 5

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Source: State surveys conducted in accordance with Title 13, U.S. Code, certified by 

the National Center for Statistics and Analysis, NHTSA

No Adult Law Secondary Law Primary Law

4. High Use Rates Associated with Strong Enforcement Laws

Use rates are consistently higher in jurisdictions in which police have a greater ability to enforce belt 

laws. A “primary belt law” allows police to stop and ticket a motorist simply for not using a belt. Police 

authority is more

limited under a

“secondary belt law”,

which requires that a

motorist violate an

additional law, such as 

having an expired

license tag or, in many 

jurisdictions, an open

container of alcohol, to 

even be stopped by

police.

In 2003, 22 of the states 

and territories in Table 

1 had primary

enforcement belt laws,

while 29 of the others 

have secondary laws,

and one state (New

Hampshire) effectively has no belt law. (In New Hampshire, it is legal for motorists who are at least 18 

years of age to ride unbelted.) The jurisdictions with primary laws are indicated in boldface in Table 1 

and by shading in Table 2. 

Two states, Delaware and Illinois, changed their belt enforcement laws from secondary to primary in 

2003. The primary law in Illinois was in effect when its 2003 use rate of 80% was obtained. (The 

primary law took effect in July, and the Illinois conducted its survey in November.) Delaware, however, 

was still governed by a secondary law when its 2003 rate of 75% was obtained. (Delaware conducted its 

survey in June and its law took effect in July.) That is, the 2003 rate for Illinois reflects its primary law, 

while that for Delaware does not. 

We note that not all primary laws, and not all secondary laws, are alike. Laws may cover different classes 

of vehicles and seating positions, and may assess different penalties. For instance, motorists in pickup 

trucks can legally ride unbelted in Georgia, but not in Alabama. In the District of Columbia, violators are 

charged a $50 fine and assessed two points on their driver’s license, while in Missouri, they are charged 

only $10 and no points. See Table 3 for key provisions of current state laws. In addition, a law might be 

more strictly enforced in one state than in another. Despite these differences, use rates in primary states 

are about 11 percentage points higher than those in secondary states. 

5. Survey Methodologies

The estimates in Table 1 satisfy criteria developed by NHTSA to ensure quality and uniformity. The 

criteria, established in Section 157 of Title 23, U.S. Code, are presented in Figure 2. 

Figure 1: 2003 Use Rates in States with Primary Belt 

Laws, Compared to Those with Secondary Laws
National Center for Statistics and Analysis 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 6

In particular, the criteria require that use rates be obtained through observation at road sites selected via 

probability sampling. Obviously viewing an observable phenomenon, such as the use of safety belts, 

yields more reliable information than interviewing people about their behavior. (In addition to the 

possible reluctance to report a behavior that is almost universally illegal, there is some evidence that 

respondents tend to report safety belt use based on their “usual” trip, such as their commute, where they 

may usually buckle up, and overlook, e.g., short trips to the local store, where they may not. The 2000 

Motor Vehicle Occupant Safety Survey finds that a significant number of respondents who report using 

belts “all the time” also report that they did not use belts on their most recent trip (Block, 2001).) The 

criteria require probability sampling because this eliminates the overestimation or underestimation that 

can result from selecting sites through non-probabilistic means.

Note also that the criteria ensure that survey results represent all vehicles on the states’ roads, not just 

those vehicles registered in the state. For instance, Alaska’s use rates in Table 1 reflect snapshots of use 

on Alaskan roads, not the degree of belt use among Alaskan residents or those in vehicles registered in 

Alaska.

Note that the criteria stipulate that the state use rates reflect the shoulder belt use of the driver and right 

front passenger in passenger vehicles during daylight hours. Based on data from fatal crashes, belt use is 

lower in the rear seat than in the front, and is lower at night than during the day. Consequently, the state 

use estimates might overestimate use in all seating positions and times of day. 

State surveys can differ in aspects not specified in Figure 3, such as the time of year in which they are 

conducted and observation protocols used (e.g., how to obtain data at sites with sufficiently heavy traffic 

volume that not every vehicle can be observed). For additional information on how individual surveys 

are conducted, contact the state highway safety offices.
National Center for Statistics and Analysis 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 7

Figure 2: Survey Criteria from Section 157, Title 23, U.S. Code

Belt use rates from the states and territories in this report are based on surveys conducted according to 

criteria issued in Section 157 of Title 23 of the United States Code. These criteria were established as 

part of an occupant protection incentive grant program for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and 

Puerto Rico. The criteria are summarized below:

1. Estimates must be obtained through a survey using actual observation of occupant shoulder 

belt use in vehicles on roadways. Use rates determined from secondary sources, e.g., police 

crash reports or use reported through telephone surveys, are not permitted.

2. The survey must be probability based. Statistical procedures must be employed to select sites 

at which observations of shoulder belt use are made. Following probability-based sampling 

procedures permits estimates that are “representative” of the use rate in the desired population 

and makes it possible to calculate their standard errors.

3. The survey must be designed and conducted to permit estimating shoulder belt use for the 

following population of interest:

• Front seat, outboard passengers, i.e., the driver and right front seat passenger.

• All passenger motor vehicles, i.e., automobiles, pickup trucks, vans, minivans, and 

sport utility vehicles, must be observed, regardless of the State (or county) of

registration.

• Observational sites in the largest geographic areas (usually counties) in the State 

containing at least 85 percent of the State’s population must be included in the 

sampling frame and have positive probability of selection. This criterion permits the 

exclusion of large, sparsely populated geographic areas where few observations are 

expected.

• Observations must be conducted during all daylight hours and on all days of the 

week, and must be scheduled without regard to day-of-week and time-of-day (for 

daylight hours).

4. The survey must be designed to produce an overall estimate of shoulder belt use with a 

relative precision (the estimated sampling error of the use divided by the estimated use rate) 

of +/- 5 percent. This ensures that there are a sufficient number of observation sites and 

observed vehicles to produce a statistically reliable estimate.

5. The survey design and results must be properly documented for evaluation of survey results 

by NHTSA and others and to determine compliance with Criteria 1-4 listed above.

Source: Section 157 of Title 23, United States Code.

6. Belt Use Nationwide

To put the state results in context, Figure 3 presents belt use rates for the entire nation. Note that the 

estimates in Figure 3 are not weighted averages of the state use rates, but rather are from an independent 
National Center for Statistics and Analysis 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 8

survey, the National Occupant Protection Use Survey (NOPUS). NOPUS, which is conducted by

National Center for Statistics and Analysis in NHTSA, is the sole probability-based observational survey 

of use nationwide. Its most recent results can be found in (Glassbrenner, September 2003). Like the state 

surveys, NOPUS observes the shoulder belt use of the driver and right front passenger in passenger 

vehicles during daylight hours.

Although state surveys provide the best measures of use on a state by sta te basis, nationwide use is best 

measured by NOPUS. Under the Section 157 criteria, states may exclude a certain amount of sparsely 

populated areas and may conduct observations solely at intersections controlled by a stop sign or 

stoplight. These cost saving measures result in observation sites that are in disproportionately more 

populated areas, where, as noted in (Glassbrenner, March 2003) belt use is higher. NOPUS does not use 

either of these measures. Based on comparisons between belt use estimates from the state surveys and 

NOPUS, it is estimated that these measures can overestimate use by as much as two percentage points.

NOPUS incorporates quality control mechanisms not required by the Section 157 criteria. NOPUS uses 

experienced data collectors who are retrained annually in the data collection procedures, and quality 

control monitors make unannounced visits to sites during data collection. NOPUS uses statistical editing 

procedures, and the NOPUS results are scrutinized by experienced statisticians. 

As noted, two state surveys may differ in aspects not specified by the Section 157 criteria, such as the 

particular observation protocols, the degree and frequency of training observers receive, and the time of 

year in which data is collected. Consequently NOPUS also provides a more consistent national measure. 

Section 157 took effect starting with the 1998 data year. Table 2 presents all of the state safety belt rates 

compliant with Section 157 in 1998 – 2003. Although many states conducted surveys prior to 1998, these 

surveys were frequently not based on probability samples and frequently differed in the vehicles covered, 

often observing only those 

vehicles affected by the

state’s belt law. The state 

rates having the highest

levels of quality and

comparability occurred

starting in 1998.

NOPUS has a disadvantage, 

in that it does not have

observation sites in every

state. Thus, if a state in

which NOPUS does not

have an observation site

passes a primary law, the

jump in use that would

likely occur in that state

would not be reflected in

NOPUS. However on

balance, the advantages of 

NOPUS as a national

measure outweigh the

disadvantages. 

Figure 3: Belt Use in the U.S., 1994 - Present

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

Source: National Occupant Protection Use Survey, National Center 

for Statistics and Analysis, NHTSA

Date Belt Use

Fall 1994 58%

Fall 1996 61%

May 1998 62%

June 1998 65%

Fall 1998 69%

Dec 1998 70%

Dec 1999 67%

June 2000 71%

Fall 2000 71%

June 2001 73%

June 2002 75%

June 2003 79%
National Center for Statistics and Analysis 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590

References

Blincoe, L., Seay, A., Zaloshnja, E., Miller, T., Romano, E., Luchter, S., Spicer, R., The Economic Impact 

of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2000, NHTSA Technical Report, DOT HS 809 446, May 2002

Block, A., 2000 Motor Vehicle Occupant Safety Survey, Volume 2: Seat Belt Report, NHTSA Technical 

Report, DOT HS 809 389, November 2001

Glassbrenner, D., Safety Belt Use in 2003, NHTSA Technical Report, DOT HS 809 646, September 2003

Glassbrenner, D., Safety Belt Use in 2002 – Use Rates in the States and Territories, NHTSA Research 

Note, DOT HS 809 587, May 2003

Glassbrenner, D., Safety Belt Use in 2002 – Demographic Characteristics, NHTSA Research Note, DOT 

HS 809 557, March 2003

Solomon, M., Nissen W., Preusser D., Occupant Protection Special Traffic Enforcement Program

Evaluation, NHTSA Technical Report, DOT HS 808 884, April 1999

Solomon, M., Ulmer, R., Preusser D., Evaluation of Click It or Ticket Model Programs, NHTSA

Technical Report, DOT HS 809 498, September 2002

Solomon, M., Chaudhary, N., Cosgrove, L., May 2003 Click It or Ticket Safety Belt Mobilization

Evaluation, NHTSA Technical Report, no DOT number available, November 2003

Traffic Safety Facts 2002 – Occupant Protection, NHTSA Fact Sheet, DOT HS 809 610, undated

Tyson, R., U.S. Transportation Secretary Mineta Launches Massive Law Enforcement Mobilization for 

Traffic Safety , NHTSA Press Release, NHTSA 19-03, May 2003
National Center for Statistics and Analysis 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590

10

Appendix

Table 2: Safety Belt Use Rates and Conversion Rates Since Section 157 Took Effect

State or 

Territory 19982

19992 Conversion 

1998-19991,2 20002 Conversion 1999-20001,2 20012 Conversion 2000-20011,2 20022 Conversion 2001-20021,2 20032 Conversion 2002-20031,2

Alabama 52% 58% 13% 71% 31% 79% 28% 79% 0% 77% -10%

Alaska 57% 61% 9% 61% 0% 63% 5% 66% 8% 79% 38%

Arizona 62% 71% 24% 75% 14% 74% -4% 74% 0% 86% 46%

Arkansas 53% 57% 9% 52% -12% 55% 6% 64% 20% 63% -3%

California 89% 89% 0% 89% 0% 91% 18% 91% 0% 91% 0%

Colorado 66% 65% -3% 65% 0% 72% 20% 73% 4% 78% 19%

Connecticut 70% 73% 10% 76% 11% 78% 8% 78% 0% 78% 0%

Delaware 62% 64% 5% 66% 6% 67% 3% 71% 12% 75% 14%

Dist. Of Columbia 80% 78% -10% 83% 23% 84% 6% 85% 6% 85% 0%

Florida 57% 59% 5% 65% 15% 70% 14% 75% 17% 73% -8%

Georgia 74% 74% 0% 74% 0% 79% 19% 77% -10% 85% 35%

Hawaii 81% 80% -5% 80% 0% 83% 15% 90% 41% 92% 20%

Idaho 57% 58% 2% 59% 2% 60% 2% 63% 8% 72% 24%

Illinois 65% 66% 3% 70% 12% 71% 3% 74% 10% 80% 23%

Indiana 62% 57% -13% 62% 12% 67% 13% 72% 15% 82% 36%

Iowa 77% 78% 4% 78% 0% 81% 14% 82% 5% 87% 28%

Kansas 59% 63% 10% 62% -3% 61% -3% 61% 0% 64% 8%

Kentucky 54% 59% 11% 60% 2% 62% 5% 62% 0% 66% 11%

Louisiana 66% 67% 3% 68% 3% 68% 0% 69% 3% 74% 16%

Maine 61% * * * * *

Maryland 83% 83% 0% 85% 12% 83% -13% 86% 18% 88% 14%

Massachusetts 51% 52% 2% 50% -4% 56% 12% 51% -11% 62% 22%
National Center for Statistics and Analysis 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590

11

State or 

Territory 19982

19992 Conversion 

1998-19991,2 20002 Conversion 1999-20001,2 20012 Conversion 2000-20011,2 20022 Conversion 2001-20021,2 20032 Conversion 2002-20031,2

Michigan 70% 70% 0% 84% 47% 82% -13% 83% 6% 85% 12%

Minnesota 64% *

3

*

3

*

3

*

3

79%

Mississippi 58% 55% -7% 50% -11% 62% 24% 62% 0% 62% 0%

Missouri 60% 61% 3% 68% 18% 68% 0% 69% 3% 73% 13%

Montana 73% 74% 4% 76% 8% 76% 0% 78% 8% 80% 9%

Nebraska 65% 68% 9% 71% 9% 70% -3% 70% 0% 76% 20%

Nevada 76% 80% 17% 79% -5% 75% -19% 75% 0% 79% 16%

New Hampshire * * * * * 50%4

New Jersey 63% 63% 0% 74% 30% 78% 15% 81% 14% 81% 0%

New Mexico 83% 88% 29% 87% -8% 88% 8% 88% 0% 87% -8%

New York 75% 76% 4% 77% 4% 80% 13% 83% 15% 85% 12%

North Carolina 77% 78% 4% 81% 14% 83% 11% 84% 6% 86% 13%

North Dakota 40% 47% 12% 48% 2% 58% 19% 63% 12% 64% 3%

Ohio 61% 65% 10% 65% 0% 67% 6% 70% 9% 75% 17%

Oklahoma 56% 61% 11% 68% 18% 68% 0% 70% 6% 77% 23%

Oregon 83% 83% 0% 84% 6% 88% 25% 88% 0% 90% 17%

Pennsylvania 68% 70% 6% 71% 3% 71% 0% 76% 17% 79% 13%

Rhode Island 59% 67% 20% 64% -9% 63% -3% 71% 22% 74% 10%

South Carolina 65% 65% 0% 74% 26% 70% -15% 66% -13% 73% 21%

South Dakota 46% * 53% 63% 21% 64% 3% 70% 17%

Tennessee 57% 61% 9% 59% -5% 68% 22% 67% -3% 69% 6%

Texas 74% 74% 0% 77% 12% 76% -4% 81% 21% 84% 16%

Utah 67% 67% 0% 76% 27% 78% 8% 80% 9% 85% 25%

Vermont 63% 70% 19% 62% -27% 67% 13% 85% 55% 82% -20%

Virginia 74% 70% -15% 70% 0% 72% 7% 70% -7% 75% 17%

Washington 79% 81% 10% 82% 5% 83% 6% 93% 59% 95% 29%

West Virginia 57% 52% -12% 50% -4% 52% 4% 72% 42% 74% 7%
National Center for Statistics and Analysis 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590

12

State or 

Territory 19982

19992 Conversion 

1998-19991,2 20002 Conversion 1999-20001,2 20012 Conversion 2000-20011,2 20022 Conversion 2001-20021,2 20032 Conversion 2002-20031,2

Wisconsin 62% 65% 8% 65% 0% 69% 11% 66% -10% 70% 12%

Wyoming 50% * 67% * 67% *

Puerto Rico 78% 78% 87% 41% 83% -30% 91% 44% 87% -36%

1

The conversion rate is the percentage reduction in belt nonuse.

2

Rates in states with primary belt enforcement laws are shaded. An asterisk indicates that the state did not report a rate compliant with Section 157.

3 MN's reported rates for 1999-2002 were later found to be noncompliant with Section 157. 

4

The rate for NH in 2003 was not reported by NH. It was obtained by Preusser Research Group using compliant methods.
National Center for Statistics and Analysis 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590

13

Table 3: Key Provisions of State Belt Use Laws as of January 20041

Penalty Coverage

State or 

Territory Law

Fine 2

Points

Seating Positions Persons Vehicles Exempted

Alabama Primary $25 Front Ages 6+, except those with 

medical reasons

Vehicles designed for more than 10 passengers, 

those delivering newspapers and rural mail, and 

vehicles manufactured before 1965

Alaska Secondary $15 All Ages 16+ School buses

Arizona Secondary $10 All Ages 5+ Vehicles designed for > 10 passengers, or 

manufactured before 1972

Arkansas Secondary $25 Front All School, church, and public buses; vehicles 

manufactured before 1968 

California Primary $20 All Ages 16+ None

Colorado

Secondary if driver 

is over 16, primary 

if driver is 16

$15 Ages 16+ in the front seat if driver is over 16; all 

ages and seats if driver is 16 Buses

Connecticut Primary $37 All in the front seat and those under 16 in all seats Trucks and buses over 15,000 lbs.

Delaware Primary $25 All Ages 16+ Postal vehicles

Dist. Of 

Columbia Primary $50 2 All Ages 16+ Vehicles designed for > 8 passengers 

Florida Secondary $30 Ages 18+ in the front seat and ages 6-17 in all seats School buses, public buses, and trucks > 

5,000 lbs.

Georgia Primary $15 Ages 18+ in the front seat, and ages 5-17 in all seats

Vehicles designed for > 10 passengers, pickup 

trucks, off-road vehicles, rural letter carriers, and 

emergency vehicles

Hawaii Primary $45 Ages 18+ in the front seat and ages 4-17 in all seats Buses and school buses over 10,000 lbs.

Idaho Secondary $10 All Ages 4+ Vehicles over 8,000 lbs.
National Center for Statistics and Analysis 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590

14

Penalty Coverage

State or 

Territory Law

Fine 2

Points

Seating Positions Persons Vehicles Exempted

Illinois Primary $25 Front Ages 4+, except those with 

medical or physical reasons

Emergency vehicles and vehicles making 

frequent stops

Indiana Primary $25 Ages 12+ in the front seat and ages 4-11 in all seats Trucks, tractors, and recreational vehicles

Iowa Primary $25 Front Age 6+ None

Kansas Secondary $10 Front Ages 14+ Vehicles designed for >10 people, and trucks 

over 12,000 lbs

Kentucky Secondary $25 All Persons over 40 inches tall. Vehicles designed for >10 people, and trucks 

over 12,000 lbs

Louisiana Primary $25 -

$50 Front All Vehicles manufactured before 1981, and those designed for > 10 people

Maine Secondary $25 -

$50 All Ages 4+ Vehicles manufactured without seat belts

Maryland Primary $25 Driver and right front 

seat

Ages 16+, except those with a 

written medical excuse

Vehicles designated as historic and taxis

Massachusetts Secondary $25 All Ages 5+, except taxi and 

bus drivers Trucks > 18,000 lbs and buses

Michigan Primary $25 Ages 16+ in the front seat and ages 4-15 in all seats Taxis and buses

Minnesota Secondary $25 Ages 11+ in the front seat and ages 4-10 in all seats Farm pickup trucks

Mississippi Secondary $25 Ages 8+ in the front seat and ages 4-17 in all seats, 

except people with medical reasons Farm vehicles, letter carriers, and buses

Missouri

Secondary for ages 

16+; primary for 

those under 16

$10 Ages 16+ in the front seats and ages 4-15 in all seats

Vehicles designed for >10 people, those used for 

agricultural purposes, trucks over 12,000 lbs, and 

postal vehicles

Montana Secondary $20 All Ages 4+ None

Nebraska Secondary $25 Ages 16+ in the front seat and ages 6-15 in all seats Vehicles manufactured before 1973
National Center for Statistics and Analysis 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590

15

Penalty Coverage

State or 

Territory Law

Fine 2

Points

Seating Positions Persons Vehicles Exempted

Nevada Secondary $25 All Ages 5+ Taxis and buses

New 

Hampshire

No law for ages 

18+; primary for 

those under 18

$25 All Persons under 18 years old. School buses, vehicles for hire, and vehicles 

manufactured before 1968

New Jersey Primary $42 

Ages 18+ in the front seat and those ages 6-17 that are 

over 80 lbs in all seats, except persons with medical 

reasons

Vehicles manufactured before 1966, those not 

required to have safety belts, and rural letter 

carriers

New Mexico Primary $25 2 All All Vehicles over 10,000 lbs.

New York Primary $50 -

$100 3 Ages 16+ in the front seat and ages 4-15 in all seats Buses, taxis, emergency vehicles, and rural letter carriers

North Carolina Primary $25 

Front, except positions 

without a belt if all belted 

positions are occupied

Ages 16+, except those 

with medical reasons

Vehicles designed for > 11 people, farm 

vehicles, and rural mail carriers

North Dakota

Secondary for ages 

18+; primary for 

those under 18

$20 Ages 18+ in the front seat and those under 18 in all 

seats

Vehicles designed for > 10 people

Ohio Secondary $25 Front Ages 4+ None

Oklahoma Primary $20 Front All Farm vehicles, trucks, and recreational 

vehicles

Oregon Primary $75 All Ages 16+ 

Police and emergency vehicles in certain 

situations, delivery vehicles, newspaper and postal 

carriers, and transit and meter vehicles

Pennsylvania Secondary $10 Ages 18+ in the front seat and ages 4-17 in all seats. Trucks over 7,000 lbs.

Rhode Island Secondary $50 All Ages 13+ None

South Carolina Secondary $10 

All, except the rear seat in 

vehicles that do not have 

belts in the rear seat.

Ages 6+ School buses and public buses
National Center for Statistics and Analysis 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590

16

Penalty Coverage

State or 

Territory Law

Fine 2

Points

Seating Positions Persons Vehicles Exempted

South Dakota

Secondary for ages 

18+; primary for 

those under 18

$20 Ages 18+ in the front seat and ages 5-17 in all seats, 

except persons with medical reasons

Buses, rural mail carriers, and newspaper and 

periodical delivery vehicles

Tennessee Secondary $10 Front Ages 4+ Vehicles over 8,500 lbs.

Texas Primary $25 -

$200 Front All Vehicles designed for >10 people, trucks over 15,000 lbs, and farm vehicles

Utah

Secondary for ages 

19+; primary for 

those under 19

$15 -

$45

All, except positions 

without a belt if all belted 

positions are occupied

All except those with 

medical reasons None

Vermont

Secondary for ages 

18+; primary for 

those under 18

$10 All Ages 7+ Buses and taxis

Virginia Secondary $25 Front Ages 16+ Vehicles designed for > 10 people and taxis

Washington Primary $86 All All Vehicles designed for > 10 people

West Virginia Secondary $25 Ages 18+ in the front seat and ages 9-17 in all seats Vehicles designed for > 10 people

Wisconsin Secondary $10 All Ages 4+ Taxis and farm trucks

Wyoming Secondary $10 -

$25

All, except positions 

without a belt if all belted 

positions are occupied

Ages 5+, except those with 

a written medical excuse 

Vehicles not required to have safety belts and 

postal vehicles

Puerto Rico Primary $50 All All None

1

 Most states also have laws requiring that certain children be in child safety seats or booster seats. We do not present these laws here. Also state belt laws are 

more complex than can be conveyed in this Table, and so the reader should consult each state’s law for its exact coverage and penalties. 

2

 The fines presented here are the fines on the ticket. They do not include court costs and surcharges.
DOT HS 809 713

March 2004