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. 

 
 i 

 Technical Report Documentation Page 

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

4. Title and Subtitle

May 2003 Click It or Ticket Safety Belt Mobilization Evaluation 

5. Report Date

March 2004

 6. Performing Organization Code 

7. Author(s) 

Mark G. Solomon, Neil K. Chaudhary, and Linda A. Cosgrove 1

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. 

DTNH22-99-D-25099

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 

1 Dr. Linda Cosgrove, NHTSA, Office of Research and Technology 

16. Abstract 

Click it or Ticket (CIOT) is an intense, short duration, safety belt paid advertising and high visibility 

enforcement program. The CIOT May 2003 Mobilization involved nearly $25 million dollars of purchased 

media. Law enforcement agencies in 44 of 45 states reported issuing more than 500,000 belt use citations 

during a two-week period beginning on May 19th and ending on June 1st. June, 2003 observations as compared 

with 2002 indicated increased belt use among front seat occupants of passenger vehicles in 40 states and the 

District of Columbia. The National Occupant Protection Use Survey (NOPUS) recorded the national usage rate 

at 79 percent, a 4 percentage point increase over 2002. National telephone surveys conducted just before and 

just after the May campaign indicated substantial increases in the number of drivers who had recently seen or 

heard of police enforcement of belt use and thought that police are writing more tickets. It was concluded that a 

highly publicized national program of belt use enforcement can increase the number of people who buckle up.

17. Key Words 

 Safety belt Enforcement 

 sTEP Paid media Evaluation 

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
 ii 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TECHNICAL SUMMARY

CONTRACTOR 

Preusser Research Group, Inc. 

CONTRACT NUMBER 

DTNH22-99-D-25099 

RE PORT TIT LE 

May 2003 Click It or Ticket Safety Belt Mobilization Evaluation 

REPORT DATE

March 2004

REPORT AUTHOR(S)

Mark G. Solomon, Neil K. Chaudhary, and Linda A. Cosgrove

1

1

 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

Background 

 

Nearly every state uses Selective Traffic Enforcement Programs (sTEP) to improve the safety belt 

use rate. Most states conduct at least two sTEP waves per year and most schedule wave activities to

occur simultaneously with National Mobilizations. National Mobilizations typically occur in May and 

November and are associated with substantial national and local belt use publicity. 

The National Mobilization planned during the spring of 2003 and implemented May 2003, was 

the largest-ever nationwide publicity and enforcement program to increase safety belt use. Similar to

previous mobilizations, the May 2003 Mobilization included a two-week enforcement blitz, running from

May 19th through the Memorial Day holiday, ending on June 1st. A key difference with this mobilization 

was that it included an unprecedented level of paid advertisements. 

Nearly $25 million in targeted state and national advertising was budgeted for placing television, 

and to a lesser extent, radio advertisements focused on 18-34 year old males, a population at risk for 

motor vehicle crashes and low belt use. Approximately, $8 million was spent for a national media buy. 

The national advertisement specifically carried a message that states were serious about enforcing the 

safety belt law and told motorists repeatedly to “Click It or Ticket.” Individual states spent an additional 

$16 million of Section 157 grant funding on similar messages expressing the same tone of intolerance for 

non safety belt users. 

National mobilizations are conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA) and the Air Bag & Safety Belt Safety Campaign of the National Safety Council, in conjunction 

with State Highway Safety Offices and thousands of state and local law enforcement agencies. Because a 

large number of states and the District of Columbia currently use the Click It or Ticket slogan (35),

National Mobilizations are often referred to as Click It or Ticket campaigns. 

(Continued on additional pages)

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

CONTRACT NO.:DTNH22-99-D25099. 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
 iii 

Objective 

 The objective of this study was to describe and evaluate May 2003 Mobilization activities. That 

is, describe the use of paid advertisements focusing on safety belt enforcement, measure motorists’ 

awareness of safety belt campaigns, and ultimately measure change in the safety belt use rate. 

Methods 

This evaluation included the collection of program data, including dollars spent placing paid 

advertisements and enforcement activity; state reported statewide observational surveys of safety belt use, 

and knowledge/attitude surveys at Driver Licensing Offices and a national telephone survey conducted in 

pre/post intervals to track progress. 

May Mobilization 2003, Activity Descriptions 

Paid Media Activity 

 Two major types of media buys occurred for the May 2003 Mobilization. First, states used nearly 

$16 million in Section 157 Seat Belt Innovative grant funding of the Transportation Equity Act for the 

21st Century (TEA-21) to purchase local television, radio and print media advertisement. Second, the 

Federal Government received a special appropriation of $8 million for a national media buy carried out by 

NHTSA and a private public relations firm. The advertisements were focused at 18 to 34 year old males, 

a high risk group with low safety belt use, and were placed on television and radio shows preferred by 

that group. 

Enforcement Activity 

 Forty-one percent, or 7,125, of law enforcement agencies across the U.S. reported their May 

Mobilization activities. They reported issuing over one-half million safety belt citations during the 

enforcement period. States with standard, or “primary,1

” safety belt use laws issued tickets at a greater 

per resident rate than states with secondary laws. 

Belt Use Enforcement Descriptions 

Number of states 

reporting 

Belt citations 

issued 

Citations per 

10,000 residents 

 

Total (44) 508,492 20 

 

Primary Law (17) 334,945 24 

Secondary Law (27) 173,547 14 

 

1

 Primary belt use laws allow an officer to stop or cite a motorist for a belt use violation alone. Remaining states 

have “secondary” laws under which the officer must first stop or cite the motorist for some other violation before a 

belt ticket can be issued. 
 iv 

Results 

2003 National Safety Belt Use 

 The National Occupant Protection Use Survey (NOPUS) is an observational survey of safety belt 

use that began in 1994 and has been used by NHTSA to measure the nation’s belt use. NOPUS observes 

actual belt use on the roads and provides a reliable estimate of use nationwide. Safety belt use reached 79 

percent in 2003, a 4 percentage point increase over the 75 percent observed in 2002 (Glassbrenner, 2003). 

Approximately 17 percent of belt nonusers were converted to users, twice the rate seen in previous years. 

Use continues to vary in different parts of the country, with higher rates in states that can enforce their 

belt laws more stringently. 

Pre/Post Changes in Safety Belt Use 

The overall front seat occupant belt use rate was measured just after the May Mobilization paid 

media and enforcement concluded (May 2003, Post Safety Belt Use Rate). State post-rates were 

compared to previous statewide use rates reported for 2002 (see figures that follow). The number of 

states that increased in belt use far exceeded the number that decreased (40 versus 5; 1 unchanged). Rates 

changed anywhere from a 4 percentage point decrease to a 13 point increase. On average, belt use rates 

in primary law states were higher compared to secondary states. That remained unchanged. Among the 

16 primary states and the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, 15 experienced an increase, 1 stayed 

even, and 2 decreased. Among 28 secondary enforcement states, 25 experienced increased usage and 3 

decreased. 

 

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

PRIMARY

Washington

Hawaii

California

Oregon

Maryland

New Mexico

Puerto Rico

Iowa

North Carolina

DC

New York

Georgia

Texas

Michigan

Indiana

New Jersey

Connecticut

Alabama

Oklahoma

Louisiana

SECONDARY

Arizona

Utah

Vermont

Montana

Pennsylvania

Alaska

Nevada

Colorado

Illinois

Nebraska

Delaware

Ohio

Virginia

Rhode Island

West Virginia

Missouri

South Carolina

Florida

Idaho

South Dakota

Wisconsin

Tennessee

Kentucky

North Dakota

Kansas

Arkansas

Mississippi

Massachusetts

New Hampshire

May 2003 Safety Belt Use Rates
 v 

Comparison of State Safety Belt Use Rates:

May 2002 and May 2003

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

PRIMARY

Washington

Hawaii

California

Oregon

Maryland

New Mexico

Puerto Rico

Iowa

North Carolina

DC

New York

Georgia

Texas

Michigan

Indiana

New Jersey

Connecticut

Alabama

Oklahoma

Louisiana

SECONDARY

Arizona

Utah

Vermont

Montana

Pennsylvania

Alaska

Nevada

Colorado

Illinois

Nebraska

Delaware

Ohio

Virginia

Rhode Island

West Virginia

Missouri

South Carolina

Florida

Idaho

South Dakota

Wisconsin

Tennessee

Kentucky

North Dakota

Kansas

Arkansas

Mississippi

Massachusetts

New Hampshire*

2002

2003

* No 2002 rate available. New Hampshire, which is the only state without an adult safety belt law, did not report rates in 2003. 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 accordance with the national uniform methodology in New Hampshire before and after the May 2003 Mobilization. 

The result of that post survey appears in the graph above. 

 Pre/Post Telephone Survey Results 

 The national telephone survey included a total of 2,446 respondents; 1,201 respondents in the prewave, 1,245 in the post-wave. Results indicated that respondents became more aware of enforcement 

efforts directed at safety belts. Pre/post survey results also indicated that respondents perceived an 

increase in enforcement activity towards safety belt use. Two measures of perceived enforcement 

indicated an increase in the proportion of motorists believing that “police in their communities were 

writing more tickets now than before” and “a ticket for non-use was more likely now than before.” 

 Pre-surveys indicated that respondents mostly received messages concerning safety belts and 

safety belt enforcement via television and radio. Post-surveys indicated that both television and radio 

exposure increased during the May 2003 Mobilization. 

 

 Comparisons with two previous national telephone surveys (May 2002 and November 2002) 

indicated increases in awareness of National Mobilizations and “Click It or Ticket” in particular. 
 vi 

Comparisons also indicated an upward trend in the belief that “police are writing more tickets now than 

before.” However, the perceived likelihood of being ticketed did not change appreciably across the three 

surveys. Support for stronger safety belt laws has remained high over the course of several mobilizations. 

Past 30 Days, Seen or Heard of Special Police Efforts towards Belts by State 

* = Significant

Driver License Office Survey 

 Results from surveys collected in driver licensing (DL) offices were similar to the telephone 

survey results. Their results indicated that a majority of drivers became more aware of the stepped up 

enforcement and that television and radio were the most common sources of information. One question 

on the DL Office survey that was not included on the telephone survey, provided evidence that actual 

stepped up enforcement was experienced by motorists, given that by the end of enforcement, respondents 

became more likely to report personally experiencing safety belt enforcement activity (13 to 17 percent). 

Discussion 

Approximately $25 million were spent on advertising enforcement focused messages. Law 

enforcement across the nation issued more than 500,000 safety belt tickets during a two-week 

enforcement phase. Belt use increased in 40 states and the District of Columbia. 

Results from driver surveys indicated that there was a high awareness of media messages and that 

the “Click It or Ticket” slogan, in particular, gained much attention. Support for stronger safety belt laws 

and the enforcement they allow has remained strong over the course of several National Mobilizations. 

Belts are approximately 50 percent effective for preventing fatality in crashes in which motorists 

would otherwise die, and so raising belt use saves lives. It is estimated that raising use to 79 percent from 

75 percent prevented 1,000 deaths that would have otherwise occurred in 2003. Since belts saved an 

estimated 14,000 motorists in 2002, NHTSA estimates that belts will have prevented 15,000 deaths by the 

end of 2003. In saving lives and preventing injuries, belt use saves billions of dollars in costs to society 

annually. 

 The results of this evaluation confirmed that intensive, short term and well-publicized 

enforcement can produce gains in safety belt usage.

16%

40%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Yes*

May (N=1201) June (N=1245)
1

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

 

I. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................2 

II. sTEP MODEL DESCRIPTION..................................................................................................................5

The Click It or Ticket sTEP Model and Timeline.......................................................................................5 

Mobilization Publicity .....................................................................................................................................5 

Earned Media ................................................................................................................................................5 

Paid Media.....................................................................................................................................................5 

Mobilization Enforcement ..............................................................................................................................6

Concluding Media Event................................................................................................................................6 

Evaluation Description...................................................................................................................................6 

May 2003 Mobilization.................................................................................................................................6 

Earned Media Activity Description.................................................................................................................6 

National Click It or Ticket Advertisements.....................................................................................................7 

National Paid Media Placements ..................................................................................................................7 

Paid Media Activity Description .....................................................................................................................8 

Safety Belt Enforcement Activity Summary....................................................................................................8 

7

III. EVALUATION METHOD .......................................................................................................................10 

Observational Surveys of Belt Use..............................................................................................................10 

Pre/Post Telephone Survey ........................................................................................................................10 

Driver Licensing Office Survey ....................................................................................................................10 

IV. RESULTS ..............................................................................................................................................12 

Observational Surveys of Belt Use..............................................................................................................12

2003 National Occupant Protection Usage Survey (NOPUS).....................................................................16 

Pre/Post Telephone Survey ........................................................................................................................16

Comparisons with Previous Telephone Surveys.........................................................................................22 

Driver License Office Survey.......................................................................................................................25 

V. DISCUSSION..........................................................................................................................................29 

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................30 

APPENDICES 

Sample Driver Licensing Office Survey...................................................................................................... A1 

National Telephone Surveys ...................................................................................................................... B1 

 
2

I. INTRODUCTION 

 Safety belts can reduce death and serious injury of front seat occupants in traffic crashes by 

nearly 50 percent. Yet of the 42,815 people killed in traffic crashes in 2002, an estimated 60 percent were 

not wearing a safety belt. According to NHTSA, safety belts are the most effective safety device in 

vehicles and would save thousands more lives annually if everyone buckled up. 

 Selective Traffic Enforcement Programs (sTEPs) are a proven method to change motorists' 

behavior and do it quickly. Occupant protection sTEPs can raise safety belt use rates more substantially 

and more quickly than any other currently available program as they create a perception among motorists 

that they will be ticketed if they do not buckle up. 

 sTEP programs typically span several weeks with the first and second weeks focused on 

publicity and the remaining weeks concentrated on publicity combined with intense and highly visible 

enforcement. 

 Canada was the first country in North America to demonstrate that highly publicized occupant 

protection enforcement increases compliance with occupant protection laws. In the mid-1970s, 

mandatory safety belt laws were passed in the Canadian provinces. Within months, the safety belt use 

rate surged to as high as 71 percent. However, shortly thereafter, the use rate declined. Years later, 

occupant protection sTEPs used in several provinces led to sharp increases in safety belt use (Jonah et al., 

1982; see also Williams et al., 2000). Continued use of sTEPs contributed to Canada's achievement of an 

87 percent use rate by the 1990s. 

 New York State experienced a similar rise and fall in its safety belt use rate following passage of 

the first statewide safety belt law in the U.S. in 1984. In 1985, the community of Elmira in Chemung 

County, NY conducted a three-week publicity and enforcement program based on the Canadian sTEP 

model. The Elmira sTEP effort, the first in the U.S., successfully reversed a falling safety belt use rate. 

The use rate improved from 49 percent to 77 percent in just three weeks time (Williams et al., 1987). 

North Carolina enacted a safety belt law in 1986. Shortly thereafter, police officers began issuing 

tickets and safety belt use rose to 78 percent, higher than anywhere else in the country. By the middle of 

1993, the rate had dropped to 65 percent. North Carolina decided to embark on a long-term program to 

increase its safety belt use rate in 1994. The program was named “Click It or Ticket” (CIOT) and it was 

the first statewide occupant protection sTEP attempted in the U.S. 

North Carolina began by using a sTEP model resembling the Canadian and Elmira programs. 

High levels of safety belt and child restraint use were achieved using stepped up enforcement, increased 

publicity and widespread public information and education focusing on enforcement. By July 1994, 

sTEPs in North Carolina had achieved an 81 percent driver safety belt use rate (Insurance Institute for 

Highway Safety, 1994). 

 Between 1995 and 1997, NHTSA funded statewide occupant protection sTEPs in over two-dozen 

states under the auspices of the Campaign Safe and Sober program. These states conducted an average of 

four sTEP waves for each year of funding. Most of these programs garnered widespread law enforcement 

support. But unlike CIOT in North Carolina, none of these programs extensively used paid media. 

Instead, these states relied heavily on earned media and public service announcements to get their 

message to the public. Furthermore, program publicity was not always focused on stepped up 

enforcement, but rather on health and safety themes. All of these sTEP states experienced measurable 

increases in belt use over time, though the wave-to-wave increases were usually small (Solomon et al., 

1999). 
3

 In November 2000, South Carolina adopted the CIOT program. This sTEP program included 

both an earned and paid media effort supported by a grant ($500,000) from the Air Bag and Safety Belt 

Safety Campaign. Both the paid and earned media efforts focused exclusively on occupant restraint 

enforcement. During a two-week enforcement period, the South Carolina Highway Patrol, in association 

with local law enforcement, conducted 3,303 checkpoints and wrote 19,815 belt use citations. By the end 

of the two-week enforcement period, 80 percent of motorists surveyed at DMV offices reported knowing 

of Click It or Ticket; 82 percent heard about checkpoints; and 40 percent had actually gone through a 

checkpoint. Observed front seat occupant belt use increased by 14 percentage points, from 65 percent 

before enforcement to 79 percent during the second enforcement week (Solomon and Preusser, in 

process). 

 Shortly after South Carolina's successful CIOT campaign, a partnership among NHTSA Region 

IV officials, the Air Bag and Safety Belt Safety Campaign and state highway safety officials was formed 

to conduct a Click It or Ticket program across the southeast. All eight states in the region, Alabama, 

Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee participated. The 

May 2001 program was structured so that all of the states simultaneously undertook a five-week earned 

media campaign, a two week paid media campaign beginning one week after the start of earned media, 

and a two week intensive enforcement effort beginning one week after the start of paid media. Locally 

conducted, pre, during and post observations of belt use and surveying of awareness of the program were 

also carried out. Some 3,250 law enforcement agencies participated in the program, conducting over 

25,000 checkpoints or patrols during the two-week enforcement period. Enforcement resulted in 119,805 

safety belt citations, 9,495 child restraint citations, 8,478 DUI arrests, recovery of 254 stolen cars and 

apprehension of 1,471 fugitives. Results of surveys conducted in driver licensing offices throughout the 

eight states showed a dramatic increase in awareness of recent safety belt messages on television and 

radio, as well as in the print media. Observations of safety belt use showed statewide increases of 

between four and twenty percentage points across the states (Solomon, 2002). 

Evaluation of the southeast region-wide program provided evidence that the full implementation 

of the Click It or Ticket model, specifically the use of paid media, can contribute to an improved belt use 

rate. The study states, though, were all within one geographical region. To evaluate more widespread 

application of the CIOT model and to measure its effectiveness, a wider geographical range of states 

would be needed. 

The availability of federal grants for safety belt enforcement under the Transportation Equity Act 

for the 21st Century (TEA-21) has made periodic safety belt enforcement sTEPs commonplace in the U.S. 

TEA-21 funds have only recently been directed towards funding paid advertisement campaigns, telling 

motorists to put on a safety belt or else be ticketed. During spring 2002, the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration approached at least one state in each of its ten Regions, looking for highway safety 

offices willing to organize and implement a CIOT or similar program in May 2002. States would be 

asked to: 

• Carry out a CIOT model program; 

• Follow established timeline for activities; 

• Saturate television and/or radio media markets with enforcement focused paid 

advertisements; 

• Vigorously enforce the safety belt law; 

• Use Click It or Ticket or like slogan; 

• Conduct evaluation model. 
4

The results of the May 2002 CIOT program evaluation confirmed that intensive short term and 

well publicized enforcement can produce large gains in safety belt use. The results also suggested that 

enforcement with only modest paid media and intensive enforcement with no paid media has some effect 

on the belt use rate, but not to the same extent as fully implementing of advertisements with enforcement 

(Solomon 2002). 

Nearly every state currently uses occupant protection sTEPs to improve the safety belt use rate. 

Most states conduct at least two sTEP waves per year and most schedule wave activities to occur 

simultaneously with National Mobilizations. Mobilizations typically occur in May and November and 

are associated with substantial national and local belt use publicity. NHTSA and the Air Bag & Safety 

Belt Safety Campaign of the National Safety Council in conjunction with thousands of state and local law 

enforcement agencies conduct these mobilizations. Because a large number of states currently use the 

Click It or Ticket slogan (35), National Mobilizations are also referred to as Click It or Ticket campaigns. 

The Federal Government dedicated an unprecedented level of funding through a special 

appropriation for the May 2003 Mobilization (approximately $25 million) for the purchase of paid 

advertisements. The U.S. Department of Transportation allocated $8 million for the purchase of national 

advertisement on television and radio broadcasts focused on 18-34 year old males, a population at risk for 

motor vehicle crashes and low belt use. Additionally, 45 State Highway Safety Offices targeted nearly 

$16 million of Section 157 grant funding for advertisements during local programming. Both national 

and state advertisements carried a strong enforcement message and targeted teens and young adults with 

the message Click It or Ticket, or something similar. 

 This report presents results from an evaluation of the May 2003 National Mobilization. In 

particular, this report summarizes activities and outcomes reported to NHTSA by individual states. 

States’ information reported to NHTSA included both process and outcome information. Wherever 

possible, the information reported by NHTSA was verified by individual states to help ensure that the 

results presented in this document were as up to date as possible. 
5

II. STEP MODEL DESCRIPTION 

The Click It or Ticket sTEP Model and Timeline 

 A Click It or Ticket (CIOT) program is an occupant protection Selective Traffic Enforcement 

Program (sTEP). The enforcement is fully supported with intensive paid publicity that focuses primarily 

on enforcement of occupant restraint laws. The model program includes 1) data collection, before, during 

and immediately after media and enforcement phases; 2) earned and paid publicity announcing strict 

enforcement; 3) highly visible enforcement each day of the two-week enforcement period; and 4) a media 

event announcing program results and thanking all the participants in the community (Figure 1). 

Figure 1. Timeline 

 Program Weeks 

 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

Program 

Click It or Ticket Publicity

 Earned media 

 Paid media 

Click It or Ticket Enforcement 

Concluding Media Event 

 

Program Evaluation

Click It or Ticket Data Collection

 Statewide belt use observations Baseline Post 

 Mini sample belt observations 

 Driver Licensing Office driver survey Baseline Post 

 Resident telephone survey Baseline Post 

 

Mobilization Publicity 

 The CIOT model includes both earned and paid media. Safety belt enforcement messages are 

repeated during the publicity period. Messages specifically stay focused on enforcement continuing to 

remind motorists to buckle up or receive a ticket, in other words, Click It or Ticket. 

Earned Media 

 Earned media is coverage by broadcast and published news services. Earned media generally 

begins one-week before paid media, two weeks before enforcement, and continues throughout other 

phases of the program. An earned media event, like a press conference and press release, typically is used 

to announce the ensuing enforcement program. Additional events continue to bring news coverage to the 

ongoing enforcement effort. Press releases can be used to update the public on the latest program details.

Paid Media 

 CIOT paid advertisement campaigns usually last two weeks. During this period, television and 

radio advertisements air extensively. Paid advertisements are placed strategically at times and places 

intended to maximize exposure to selected audiences. Typically, both radio and television advertisements 

are timed to air at pre-selected times that maximize exposure. Paying for advertisement placement is 

necessary to reach the largest audience and specific low belt use target groups. Within a short time 

frame, radio advertisements, timed to run during drive times, attempt to reach motorists when they most 

likely are in their vehicles. Television advertisements are run at times when the most viewers are 
6

watching. Additionally, some of the television and radio airtime is strategically placed to reach low belt 

use groups such as youth, pickup truck occupants, and rural populations on the shows they favor. 

Mobilization Enforcement 

 CIOT enforcement campaigns usually last two weeks. During this period, zero-tolerance 

enforcement focusing on safety belt violations is carried out statewide. Ideally, traffic enforcement stays 

focused on safety belt violations above all other traffic violations. Making safety belt use the principal 

focus for enforcement may be easier in locations with safety belt laws allowing for standard enforcement. 

That is, compared to locations with secondary laws (where a driver must be stopped for some other 

violation before a citation for non-use can be issued). But focusing on safety belts is possible in both 

legal environments. Various enforcement techniques used during the period of enforcement may include, 

checkpoints, saturation patrols and routine patrols. Checkpoints are ideal because of their high visibility. 

Whatever enforcement tactics are used, keeping traffic enforcement visibly present for the entire 

enforcement period is a central component of CIOT. 

Concluding Media Event 

 Weeks after ending CIOT publicity and enforcement, a concluding media event is used to 

publicize results. Program results and recognition of contributions from the community are supplied to 

the media for public exposure. 

Evaluation Description 

CIOT programs are evaluated in a number of ways. Observed safety belt use and motorists’ 

attitudes and knowledge of police activity are tracked. Data are collected week-by-week; before, during 

and at the height of the enforcement effort and just after the conclusion of special enforcement and media 

activities. Evaluation methods are explained in more detail in the next chapter. 

May 2003 National Mobilization 

 During spring 2003, all 50 states conducted safety belt enforcement activity, however, 43 states, 

the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico received section 157 Innovative grants to conduct sTEP 

programs for the May 2003 National Mobilization. 

Regional leadership was crucial to planning and implementing necessary elements to ensure 

successful campaigns. Although campaign publicity and enforcement lasted over a four-week period, 

organizing the campaign took months. During that time, enforcement support had to be garnered and a 

publicity and enforcement plan needed structuring, along with an evaluation plan. The Air Bag & Seat 

Belt Safety Campaign was instrumental in coordinating enforcement agencies’ participation nationally. 

 Implementation of campaign publicity and enforcement lasted four weeks, in most states. During 

that period, states typically followed a similar schedule for conducting the enforcement and publicity 

campaign. Operating jointly in a National campaign conveyed a unified enforcement presence and 

strengthened the message. 

Earned Media Activity Description 

In most states, the formula for earned media was the same. Earned media typically started two 

weeks before the enforcement effort, usually with a flurry of kick-off press events, featuring newsworthy 

spokespersons at all levels of government and law enforcement, as well as representatives of health and 

highway safety advocacy groups. Press releases were distributed to local print news before, sometimes 

during, and after the enforcement campaign to raise awareness. Additional actions continued to bring 

news coverage to the ongoing enforcement effort. Earned media efforts were sustained on an almost 

daily basis through the end of the campaign. These events were intended to attract public attention to the 
7

overall program intent, show statewide support for the campaign and announce how and when the 

campaign would occur. 

 There were more than 1,000 local television news stories about the mobilization and about the 

national advertisement. There was national coverage on ABC, CNN, and Fox news. Radio coverage 

reached nearly 22 million impressions. A NHTSA, NSC, ACTS radio media tour was aired on 6,428 

stations for a total of 10,251 times. Another 7,142 stations used the audio news release for over 34 

million impressions. Placements on Spanish language radio received a 99 percent placement rate with 99 

out of 100 stations and networks picking up the feed. The national advertisement was the story. 

 Articles, editorials, and columns appeared in nearly 100 publications. There were articles about 

Click It or Ticket in eight of the top 10 markets in the country. National wire stories ran on Associated 

Press, Reuters Health, and Scripps Howard. 

National Click It Or Ticket Advertisements 

 NHTSA’s Office of Communications and Consumer Information and a public relations firm 

coordinated the development and production of 30-second national television and radio scripts, designing 

the national media plan, and implementing the national media buy. NHTSA’s production costs were 

$400,000, which came out of the section 157 funds. The advertisements targeted men aged 18 to 34. 

Additional media planning and buying assistance were given to the states to support state campaigns at a 

cost of $600,000 from section 403 funds. 

The national television shot showed four different cars driving in a variety of locations 

(mountains, small towns, urban center and near a beach) and officers in a variety of uniforms approaching 

the cars, with sirens and lights. The intent was to capture a variety of American locations. The narrative 

announced “From coast to coast.....starting May 19th....if you don’t click it.....expect a ticket. Cops write 

tickets because seat belts save lives. So click it....or ticket.” The voice over was accompanied by 

graphics of drivers reacting to getting a ticket, four drivers putting on their seat belts, footage of crash test 

dummies (one belted, one unbelted). The last graphic showed the Click It or Ticket logo and sponsoring 

identification of the U.S. Department of Transportation. The television video was produced in Spanish: 

“De costa a costa....empezando el 19 de mayo....si no se abrocha el cinturón...le darán una multa. La 

policía impone multas porque los cinturones de seguridad salvan vidas. Así qu abrochado...o multado.” 

A 30-second national radio advertisement used the voice of a 20s male with music throughout: 

“All right, everybody knows “seat belts save lives,” I mean we’ve been hearing that for years – I’m just 

tellin’ ya your seat belt can save your money and a whole lot of hassle too. Because from coast to coast, 

cops are cracking down. They have this whole...campaign—“Click It or Ticket.” Pretty simple, you 

buckle up...or you pay up. Consider this a friendly warning, because cops won’t be giving warnings. 

Remember, Click It...or Ticket. DISCLAIMER: Paid for the by U.S. Department of Transportation and 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.” The Spanish version played latin music throughout: 

“Bien, todos saben que “los cinturones de seguridad salvan vidas”. Yo solo les digo que el cinturón de 

seguridad puede ahórrales dinero y un montón de problemas también. La policía tiene una campaña – 

“Abrochado o Multado”. Es super sencillo, se abrochan el cinturón o pagan la multa. Consideren esto 

una advertencia amigable, porque la policía no va a estar dando advertencies. Recuerden, Abrochado o 

Multado. DISCLAIMER: Patrocinado por el Departamento de Transporte.” 

National Paid Media Placement 

 The national buy was $8 million; almost $4 million went to broadcast TV, $2.5 million to cable 

TV, and about $1.5 million to radio stations. Purchased airtime was the two weeks from May 12th

through May 26th, which occurred during the May sweeps. Television network programming was bought 

on shows that men 18 to 34, including African American and Hispanic men, were watching. These 
8

include NASCAR’s Coca Cola 600, American Idol, Cops, Mr. Personality, Fear Factor, Dog Eat Dog, 

Law & Order SVU, Saturday Night Live, Conan O’Brien, Last Call with Carson Daly, Tonight Show, 

Everwood, Smallville, Jamie Kennedy, WB Movie of the Week, Charmed, Black Sash, WWF 

Smackdown, Buffy Vampire, Twilight Zone, Platinum, Enterprise, UPN Move, Sportscenter, NHL 

Conference Playoffs, NBA, Major League Baseball, Auto Racing Weekend, Pardon the Interruption, 

MAAD Sports, Black Star Cinema, Comic View, Way We Do It, BET News, Top 25 Countdown, Real 

TV, Late Nite, Car & Driver, Prime Trucks, Horsepower TV, WWF, Seinfield, Friends, Dawson’s Creek, 

Drew Carey, X-Files, Law & Order, Heat Night Predator, NBA Playoffs, Novelas, Cristina Edicion 

Especial, Cine De Estrellas, Gran Musical, Ver Par Cree, Mujer Casos—Vida Real, and La Hora Pico. 

 Network Radio programming was bought on ESPN Morning Show, Tony Kornheiser Show, Dan 

Packard Show, NBA Playoffs, Major League Baseball, Doug Banks, Ton Joyner, Don & Mike, Tom 

Leykis, NHL Finals, Gen X, and The Edge. 

 

Paid Media Activity Description 

 Similar to previous Mobilizations, 45 states spent TEA-21 grant funds towards placing paid 

advertisements that encouraged motorists to put on a safety belt or receive a ticket. The level of funding, 

however, was far greater compared to previous Mobilizations. For example, nearly $5 million was spent 

by 41 states in November 2002 to advertise enforcement efforts; close to three times that level ($16 

million) was budgeted by 45 states for the May 2003 Mobilization (Table 1). Another $8 million was 

spent in a targeted national buy, with another $600,000 in added value. The ads targeted males, aged 18-

34, including African American and Hispanic men, watching network and cable television and listening to 

radio. 

Table 1. Amount Spent by States on Paid Advertisements 

States Reporting 

Estimated dollars spent 

on paid advertisements 

Cents 

per resident 

 

Total (45) $15,700,000 

$1,780,000 added value 

6 

Safety Belt Enforcement Activity Summary 

Table 2 presents the total number of law enforcement agencies (LEAs) across 45 states that 

reported May Mobilization enforcement. Forty-one percent of LEAs (7,125) reported some level of 

activity. Nearly an equal proportion of LEAs reported in primary states as did in secondary states. 

Table 2. Enforcement Descriptions 

Number of States 

Reporting 

Number of 

LEAs 

Number of 

Reporting LEAs 

% LEAs 

Reporting 

 

Total (45) 17,291 7,125 41 

Primary Law (18) 7,932 3,370 42 

Secondary Law (27) 9,359 3,755 40 
9

Table 3 shows the number of safety belt citations issued during the mobilization and citations 

issued per 10,000 residents. Enforcement results were dependent not only on level of ticket writing, but 

also on the number of agencies reporting and completeness in reporting. Several states provided 

information indicating that far fewer than the total number of participating agencies actually reported and, 

as such, what is presented in Table 3 understates total enforcement activities. 

Across the 44 (of 45) states that reported number of safety belt tickets issued, 508,492 tickets 

were reported issued for non-compliance with safety belt laws. Primary law states issued the majority of 

safety belt tickets, even though these states were fewer in number than secondary law states (17 versus 

27). Primary law states issued 66 percent of belt tickets (334,945) and secondary law states issued 34 

percent (173,547). 

The difference in ticketing level is obvious when looking at citations per resident population. 

Based on U.S. Census population figures (U.S. Census, 2000), primary states issued 24 safety belt tickets 

per 10,000 residents, secondary states issued 14 (based on 44 states). Another notable difference is that 

secondary states issued speeding tickets at more than double the rate of primary states, 25 versus 11 

citations per 10,000 residents (based on 30 states). The difference may be due to the fact that secondary 

enforcement requires a vehicle to be stopped for a reason other than non-compliance with the safety belt 

law. Rates of DWI arrests were more even between law types. States (38) reported 22,420 alcohol 

related arrests during the period of enforcement. 

Table 3. Reported Citations/Arrests

Number of states 

reporting 

Belt citations 

issued 

Citations per 

10,000 residents 

Total (44) 508,492 20 

 

Primary Law (17) 334,945 24 

Secondary Law (27) 173,547 14 

 

Number of states 

reporting 

Speeding citations 

issued 

Citations per 

10,000 residents 

Total (30) 314,012 19 

 

Primary Law (11) 79,912 11 

Secondary Law (19) 234,100 25 

 

Number of states 

reporting 

DWI 

 arrests 

Arrests per 

10,000 residents 

Total (38) 22,420 .08 

 

Primary Law (14) 10,533 .07 

Secondary Law (24) 11,887 .10 

 
10

III. EVALUATION METHOD 

 All states committed resources to evaluate their individual effort. National coordination 

facilitated shared data collection procedures among evaluators. 

Observational Surveys of Belt Use 

 Nearly every state conducted and reported statewide surveys of belt use immediately following 

the period of stepped up enforcement. Most of the surveys were completed within the month of June 

2003. These surveys generally followed NHTSA guidelines for conducting statewide surveys. NHTSA 

guidelines require that: 

• states have a probability-based survey design; 

• data be collected from direct observation of safety belt use; 

• the relative error of the safety belt use estimate not exceed five percent; 

• counties or other primary sampling units totaling at least 85 percent of the State’s population be 

eligible for inclusion in the sample; 

• all daylight hours for all days of week be eligible for inclusion in the sample. 

NHTSA guidelines also require that the determination of a safety belt use rate be based on all types of 

passenger motor vehicles including passenger cars, pickup trucks, vans, minivans, and sport utility 

vehicles and that surveys include observation of both drivers and front seat outboard passengers and both 

in-state and out-of-state vehicles. 

Observational surveys of statewide safety belt use from the previous year were compared with 

state rates reported for June 2003. 

The national safety belt use rate was determined by the National Occupant Protection Use Survey 

(NOPUS). NOPUS is an observational survey of safety belt use that began in 1994 and has been used by 

NHTSA to measure the nation’s belt use. NOPUS observes actual use on the roads and provides a 

reliable estimate of safety belt use nationwide. The 2003 NOPUS survey observed 213,195 occupants in 

162,195 vehicles in 1,972 observation sites across the country in June (Glassbrenner, 2003). 

Pre/Post Telephone Survey 

 Random dial telephone surveys were conducted before announcing the enforcement program to 

the public (May 2003) and after the period of enforcement ended (June 2003). The survey instrument 

used was a NHTSA developed instrument, designed to measure drivers’ knowledge and awareness related 

to safety belts, laws governing their use, and exposure to safety belt enforcement programs (see Solomon, 

2002). The survey instrument did not change between the two survey waves. 

 Survey samples were designed to represent the national population using approximately 1,200 

respondents with an approximate even split between males and females. 

 Results from the May/June 2003 surveys were compared with previous pre/post national surveys, 

conducted May/June 2002 and November/December 2002. Survey methodology was consistent across 

these surveys. 

Driver Licensing Office Survey 

 A small number of states (10) reported results from surveys of motorists coming into Driver 

Licensing Offices (DL) for license services. These surveys were conducted before and immediately after 

the National Mobilization’s publicity and enforcement. 
11

 The one-page questionnaire was used to assess public knowledge and awareness, changes 

motorists may have made in their safety belt use behaviors, how vigorously they felt their police agencies 

enforce the law and the likelihood police would stop them. The survey form used in each state, by and 

large, was the same with only minor modifications to names of states, type of law, and names of law 

enforcement agencies as they appear on the questionnaire (see example questionnaires in Appendix A). 

 The questionnaire remained unaltered between pre and post waves in order to measure change as 

the campaign progressed. The first wave of surveys provided baseline information. DL offices conducted that 

wave over the two-week period leading up to the announcement of the enforcement program. A second 

survey wave measured program effects immediately after the enforcement period ended. 
12

IV. RESULTS 

Observational Surveys of Belt Use 

Forty seven states plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico reported observed statewide 

safety belt usage rates for June 2003. These rates have been verified or certified by NHTSA’s National 

Center for Statistics and Analysis. The graph in Figure 2a shows the rates for these states. Figure 2b 

shows 2002 and 2003 safety belt rates. The number of states that increased in belt use far exceeded the 

number that decreased (40 versus 6). Two states rates remained unchanged. Safety belt rates changed 

from a 4 percentage point decrease to a 13 percentage point increase. Of the 18 primary states and the 

District of Columbia and Puerto Rico who reported their 2003 usage rates, compared to 2002 rates, 15 

had their rates increase, two stayed the same and three had lower rates. For the 28 secondary states for 

which 2002 and 2003 rates were known, 25 increased and three dropped compared to 2002 rates. 

Figure 2a. Statewide Safety Belt Use Rates 2003

It should be noted that historically primary states, on average, have higher belt usage rates than do 

secondary states (85 versus 73 percent in 2003). Theoretically, it is harder for primary states to increase 

their belt use compared to secondary states, because they are starting at higher rates. For example, 

increasing belt usage 5 percentage points from 85 to 90 percent is more difficult than going from 60 to 65 

percent. 

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

PRIMARY

Washington

Hawaii

California

Oregon

Maryland

New Mexico

Puerto Rico

Iowa

North Carolina

DC

New York

Georgia

Texas

Michigan

Indiana

New Jersey

Connecticut

Alabama

Oklahoma

Louisiana

SECONDARY

Arizona

Utah

Vermont

Montana

Pennsylvania

Alaska

Nevada

Colorado

Illinois

Nebraska

Delaware

Ohio

Virginia

Rhode Island

West Virginia

Missouri

South Carolina

Florida

Idaho

South Dakota

Wisconsin

Tennessee

Kentucky

North Dakota

Kansas

Arkansas

Mississippi

Massachusetts

New Hampshire

May 2003 Safety Belt Use Rates
13

Comparison of State SB Use Rates:

May 2002 and May 2003

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

PRIMARY

Washington

Hawaii

California

Oregon

Maryland

New Mexico

Puerto Rico

Iowa

North Carolina

DC

New York

Georgia

Texas

Michigan

Indiana

New Jersey

Connecticut

Alabama

Oklahoma

Louisiana

SECONDARY

Arizona

Utah

Vermont

Montana

Pennsylvania

Alaska

Nevada

Colorado

Illinois

Nebraska

Delaware

Ohio

Virginia

Rhode Island

West Virginia

Missouri

South Carolina

Florida

Idaho

South Dakota

Wisconsin

Tennessee

Kentucky

North Dakota

Kansas

Arkansas

Mississippi

Massachusetts

New Hampshire*

2002

2003

* No 2002 rate available. New Hampshire, which is the only state without an adult safety belt law, did not report rates in 2003. 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 accordance with the national uniform methodology in New Hampshire before and after the May 2003 Mobilization. 

The result of that post survey appears in the graph above. 

Figure 2b. Observed Changes in the Statewide Safety Belt Use Rate by State 

One measure of safety belt usage rate change that seeks to account for this is the measure of 

conversion rates. A conversion rate looks at the percentage of non-users who were “converted” to users. 

Using this measure, on average, primary states converted 8 percent of their non-users while secondary 

states converted 14 percent of their non-users. The average conversion rate was 13 percent. Conversion 

rates ranged from 48 percent (i.e. that percentage of non-users who now are users) to 36 percent (where 

the state had a very small percentage of non-users that grew by that percentage). Table 4 shows the 

conversion rates for primary and secondary law states. 
14

Table 4. State Reported Safety Belt Use Rates, 2002 and 2003 

State 2002 2003 Change Conversion 

PRIMARY LAW 

Washington 92.6% 94.8% 2 30% 

Hawaii 90.4% 91.8% 1 15% 

California 91.1% 91.2% 0 1% 

Oregon 88.2% 90.4% 2 19% 

Maryland 85.8% 87.9% 2 15% 

New Mexico 87.6% 87.2% 0 -3% 

Puerto Rico 90.5% 87.1% -3 -36% 

Iowa 82.4% 86.2% 4 22% 

North Carolina 84.1% 86.1% 2 13% 

DC 84.6% 84.9% 0 2% 

New York 82.8% 84.6% 2 10% 

Georgia 77.0% 84.5% 8 33% 

Texas 81.1% 84.3% 3 17% 

Michigan 82.9% 83.9% 1 6% 

Indiana 72.2% 82.3% 10 36% 

New Jersey 80.5% 81.2% 1 4% 

Connecticut 78.0% 78.0% 0 0% 

Alabama 78.7% 77.4% -1 -6% 

Oklahoma 70.1% 76.7% 7 22% 

Louisiana 68.6% 73.8% 5 17% 

SECONDARY LAW 

Arizona 73.7% 86.2% 13 48% 

Utah 80.1% 85.2% 5 26% 

Vermont 84.9% 82.4% -3 -17% 

Montana 78.4% 79.5% 1 5% 

Pennsylvania 75.7% 79.0% 3 14% 

Alaska 65.8% 78.9% 13 38% 

Nevada 74.9% 78.7% 4 15% 

Colorado 73.2% 77.7% 5 17% 

Illinois 73.8% 76.2% 2 9% 

Nebraska 69.7% 76.1% 6 21% 

Delaware 71.2% 74.9% 4 13% 

Ohio 70.3% 74.7% 4 15% 

Virginia 70.4% 74.6% 4 14% 

Rhode Island 70.8% 74.2% 3 12% 

West Virginia 71.6% 73.6% 2 7% 

Missouri 69.4% 72.9% 4 11% 

South Carolina 66.3% 72.8% 6 19% 

Florida 75.1% 72.6% -3 -10% 

Idaho 62.9% 71.7% 9 24% 

South Dakota 64.0% 69.9% 6 16% 

Wisconsin 66.1% 69.8% 4 11% 

Tennessee 66.7% 68.5% 2 5% 

Kentucky 62.0% 65.5% 4 9% 

North Dakota 63.4% 63.7% 0 1% 

Kansas 61.3% 63.6% 2 6% 

Arkansas 63.7% 62.8% -1 -2% 

Mississippi 62.0% 62.2% 0 0% 

Massachusetts 51.0% 61.7% 11 22% 

NO ADULT BELT LAW 

New Hampshire* 49.6% 

* No 2002 rate available. New Hampshire, which is the only state without an adult safety belt law, did not report rates in 2003. 

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 accordance with the national uniform methodology in New Hampshire 

before and after the May, 2003 mobilization. 
15

Of the states that reported both 2002 and 2003 full statewide belt use rates, 28 also reported a belt 

use rate measured just prior to the May 2003 Mobilization. Most of the states used a “mini survey” for 

the pre-measurement. Mini surveys are designed to be representative of the entire state by using a sample 

of observation sites from the larger statewide observational survey of belt use. One should be hesitant to 

draw strong conclusions regarding statewide belt use from a mini survey. Comparisons of the pre to post 

measures for this mobilization provide strong evidence of an increase in belt use immediately following 

the mobilization. Specifically, the fact that all 28 states showed an increase in belt use from pre to post 

suggests that even if we allow for any lack of the generalizability of the mini survey, there is strong 

evidence that the increase is real. Exploring the pattern of belt use across all three observational surveys 

shows that, since 2002, belt use generally dropped. But, after the re-treatment via the sTEP program, 

belt-use not only reached its prior level, but exceeded it. This pattern is similar to what has been 

described in previous literature as a “saw-blade pattern” (NHTSA, 1996). This implies that while belt use 

does indeed drop over time following a mobilization, the reintroduction of a mobilization restores the lost 

ground and then surpasses previous highs. 

A repeated measures one-way ANOVA demonstrates that this pattern of an initial decrease 

followed by an increase of greater magnitude is significant (F (2,54) = 32.07, p < .001) with all the simple 

effects being significantly different from each other according to follow-up paired t-tests (all p’s < .004). 

Figure 3. Observed Change in Statewide Safety Belt Use Rate 

75.2% 72.8% 75.8%

78.5%

79.4%

84.0%

82.6%

71.0%

69.2%

60.0%

65.0%

70.0%

75.0%

80.0%

85.0%

90.0%

2002 2003 PRE 2003 POST

% Belted (All 28 States) % Belted (Primary) % Belted (Secondary)
16

2003 National Observation Survey (NOPUS) 

 The National Occupant Protection Use Survey (NOPUS) found that safety belt use reached 79 

percent in 2003, a 4 percentage point increase over the 75 percent observed in 2002 (Glassbrenner, 2003). 

Approximately 17 percent of belt nonusers were converted to users, twice the rate seen in previous years. 

Use continues to vary in different parts of the country, with higher rates in states that can enforce their 

belt laws more stringently. States with primary safety belt laws reached 83 percent; those with secondary 

laws reached 75 percent. Belt use continues to lag behind for drivers of pickup trucks as compared to 

passenger cars , SUVs and vans. 

Table 5. National Occupant Protection Use Survey (NOPUS); Results 2000 - 2003 

Characteristic June 2003 June 2002 June 2001 Fall 2000 

Overall 79% 75% 73% 71% 

Primary Enforcement 

Secondary Enforcement 

83% 

75% 

80% 

69% 

78% 

67% 

77% 

64% 

Drivers 

Passengers 

80% 

77% 

76% 

73% 

74% 

72% 

72% 

68% 

Passenger Cars 

SUVS & Vans 

Pickup Trucks 

81% 

83% 

69% 

77% 

78% 

64% 

76% 

75% 

62% 

74% 

74% 

59% 

Northeast 

Midwest 

South 

West 

74% 

75% 

80% 

84% 

69% 

74% 

76% 

79% 

62% 

72% 

76% 

77% 

67% 

68% 

69% 

80% 

Weekday 

 Rush Hour 

 Non-Rush Hour 

Weekend 

78% 

79% 

79% 

81% 

75% 

76% 

75% 

76% 

73% 

75% 

72% 

74% 

71% 

73% 

70% 

73% 

Source: National Center for Statistics and Analysis, NHTSA, NOPUS 2000-2003

Pre/Post Telephone Survey 

 The national telephone surveys included a total of 2,446 respondents; 1,201 respondents in the 

pre-wave, 1,245 in the post-wave. Each survey sample had equal proportions by respondent gender, age, 

race and ethnicity, education level, type of vehicle driven most often, and (mean) number of adults in 

household. Comprehensive results are presented in Appendix B. 

 The figures that follow show results for selected questions from the baseline and post telephone 

surveys. Telephone survey results are explained categorically as they pertain to: 1) exposure to program 

message; 2) perception of law enforcement; 3) self reported usage, and; 4) awareness/opinion of safety 

belt law. 

Exposure to Program Message 

The telephone survey included questions asking respondents about recent exposure to safety belt 

messages and specifically messages concerning safety belt enforcement. Respondents who indicated 

exposure to messages were then asked to identify sources of those messages. 

 Respondents were asked if in the past 30 days they had seen or heard any messages encouraging 

safety belt use (Figures 4). Pre-survey (May 2003) results indicated that 73 percent of respondents had 

seen or heard messages encouraging safety belt use, suggesting that belt messages are generally 

commonplace. The post-survey (June 2003) measured an increase in the affirmative responses, to where 

82 percent of respondents reported exposure to messages encouraging safety belt use. 
17

Figure 4. Past 30 Days, Seen or Heard Messages Encouraging Safety Belt Use by State 

* = Significant 

 A more specific survey question asked respondents whether or not they had seen or heard about 

the special enforcement efforts towards belts in the past 30 days. Pre-survey results indicated that few 

had just before the May Mobilization (16 percent). Figure 5 shows that changed over the course of the 

Mobilization. Just after the Mobilization, 40 percent of survey respondents indicated exposure to an 

enforcement message, an increase of 24 percentage points. 

Figure 5. Past 30 Days, Seen or Heard of Special Police Efforts towards Belts by State 

16%

40%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Yes*

May (N=1201) June (N=1245)

73%

82%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Yes*

May (N=1201) June (N=1245)
18

Respondents who indicated hearing or seeing a safety belt enforcement message in the past 30 

days were also asked where they had seen or heard that message. Respondents indicated television as the 

most common source of information both before and after the mobilization (Figure 6). Post-survey 

results indicated that the proportion of respondents seeing a belt enforcement message on television 

nearly doubled over the course of the May Mobilization (28 to 50 percent). Post-survey results also 

indicated that respondent’s recall of radio messages nearly doubled (11 to 20 percent). 

Figure 6. Where Saw or Heard of Special Enforcement Effort (subset of total respondents) 

 Figure 7 shows that large increases were measured in the percentage of respondents recalling the 

“Click It or Ticket” and the Click It or Ticket [State Name] slogans (26 and 24 percentage point 

increases). A small increase was measured in recall of the already well known Buckle Up [State Name] 

slogan (6 point increase). The alcohol awareness slogan, Friends Don’t Let Friends Drive Drunk 

remained the most recalled program slogan. Other slogans showed less recall and little or no change in 

recognition.

Figure 7. Recognized Principal Program Slogan by State

28%

11%

9%

22%

23%

11%

50%

20%

10%

14%

13%

13%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

TV

Radio

Friend

Newspaper

Observed

Billboards/signs

May (N=174) June (N=494)

81%

35%

39%

23%

50%

16%

20%

28%

51%

7%

83%

61%

42%

22%

54%

16%

23%

52%

57%

4%

4%6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Friends Don't Let Friends Drive Drunk

Click It Or Ticket*

Buckle Up America

Children In Back

You Drink, You Drive, You Lose

Didn't See It Coming? No One Ever Does

Get The Keys*

Click It Or Ticket [State]*

Buckle Up [State]*

Four Steps For Kids*

None*

May (N=1201) June (N=1245)
19

Perception of Law Enforcement 

 The telephone survey asked respondents a number of questions concerning perceived safety belt 

enforcement. Respondents were asked if they agree with the statement “that police in the community are 

writing more tickets now than a few months ago” (Figure 8). Pre-survey results indicated that about a 

third (34 percent) of respondents “agreed.” The proportion “agreeing” after the mobilization was larger 

(47 percent). The sharpest increase was measured among respondents saying that they “strongly agree” 

(9 point difference). 

Figure 8. “Strongly Agree” Police in Community are Writing More Tickets Now by State 

 A related question asked respondents if they agree with the statement “police in my community 

generally won’t bother to write tickets for safety belt violations.” A sizeable proportion of pre-survey 

respondents (38 percent) expressed agreement before the mobilization. After the mobilization, that 

proportion measured somewhat lower (33 percent), a decrease of 5 points.

Figure 9. Police Generally Won’t Bother to Write Tickets for Safety Belt Violations

18% 16% 13% 11%

42%

27%

20%

7% 7%

39%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Strongly

agree

Somewhat

agree

Somewhat

disagree

Strongly

disagree

Don't

know/refused

May (N=1201) June (N=1245)

16%

22% 18% 22% 23%

15% 18% 17%

26% 25%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Strongly

agree

Somewhat

agree

Somewhat

disagree

Strongly

disagree

Don't

know/refused

May (N=1201) June (N=1245)
20

 Respondents were asked how likely they think the chances are to receive a ticket for not wearing 

a safety belt. Post survey results found that the proportion of respondents who perceived a ticket “very 

likely” increased 6 percentage points; the proportion perceiving a ticket as “somewhat likely” increased 3 

points. 

Figure 10. Reports That Over Past Six Months Ticket for Non-Use was “Very Likely” by State 

Self Reported Usage 

 Respondents were asked to report on their frequency of belt use. First, a series of questions asked 

what kind of belt system is in the respondent’s primary vehicle, then how often the belt system was used, 

and when was the last time they did not use it. Ninety-two percent of respondents indicated that their 

vehicle had the combination of lap and shoulder belt, seven percent indicated their vehicle had a shoulder 

belt only, and the remaining one percent just a lap belt. Among the respondents with a combination 

lap/should belt, 87 percent said they used the restraint system “all the time” and that did not change over 

time (Figure 11). That proportion was an obvious exaggeration that did not match with direct on-thestreet measurements of belt use. A follow-up question asked respondents to indicate when was “the most 

recent time driving without a safety belt” (Figure 12). One-in-four respondents indicated within the 

previous year they had made at least one trip in which they did not use their safety belt. 

Figure 11. Frequency of Lap/Shoulder Belt Use 

28% 25%

17% 22%

34%

28%

15% 17%

7% 5%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Very likely Somewhat

likely

Somewhat

unlikely

Very unlikely Don't

know/refused

May (N=993) June (N=1050)

87%

7% 2% 2% 2%

87%

7% 3% 2% 2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

All of the time Most of the

time

Some of the

time

Rarely Never

May (N=1063) June (N=1112)
21

Figure 12. Most Recent Time Driving Without a Safety Belt 

 Figure 13 shows the reported frequency of belt use adjusting for the most recent time driving 

without a safety belt. “All of the time” respondents slightly decreased over time (from 78 to 74 percent) 

and “all the time minus a month” respondents increased by as much (9 to 13 percent). Overall, reported 

frequency of belt use did not change during the National Mobilization. 

Figure 13. Frequency of Safety Belt Use (Adjusted) 

10% 7% 5% 4%

72%

3%

10% 9% 7%

2%

70%

2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Past day

Past week

Past month

Past year

More than a year

Not sure/refused

May (N=1065) June (N=1113)

78%

7% 2% 2% 2%

74%

7% 3% 2% 2%

9% 13%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

All of the

time*

All of the

time minus

past month

Most of the

time

Some of the

time

Rarely Never

May (N=1063) June (N=1112)
22

Opinion of Safety Belt Law 

 Research indicates that wearing a safety belt can reduce injury by nearly 50 percent. However, 

among telephone survey respondents, over one-third (35 percent) indicated agreement with the statement 

“safety belts are as likely to harm as help you” and nine percent strongly agreed that “putting on a safety 

belt makes them worry.” On the other hand, a vast majority (86 percent) strongly agreed that they would 

want a safety belt on if in a crash. 

 The proportion of respondents that indicated “stricter enforcement of adult safety belt laws” is 

very important measured higher after the May Mobilization (from 56 to 62 percent) adding proof that a 

majority of respondents believe safety belt enforcement is a necessary tool for improving safety belt use. 

Additionally, a majority of respondents (69 percent) indicated that primary enforcement of safety belt 

laws should be allowed, and that remained relatively unchanged over the course of the National 

Mobilization. Roughly one-quarter (27 percent) of the respondents indicated the opinion that primary 

enforcement should not be allowed. 

Comparison with Previous National Surveys 

 The May 2003 telephone surveys were preceded by two national surveys conducted in the same 

pre/post fashion; the first during May 2002 and the second during November 2002. The figures that 

follow show results for selected questions from all three pre/post telephone surveys. Results are 

explained categorically as they pertain to: 1) exposure to program message; 2) perception of law 

enforcement, and; 3) opinion of safety belt law. 

Exposure to Program Message 

 Awareness of special enforcement efforts increased, from pre-to-post, each survey wave (Fig. 

14). The largest increase was measured after the May 2003 Mobilization (24 percentage points), where 

40 percent of those surveyed recalled hearing or seeing about a special enforcement efforts in the past 30 

days. Comparatively, after the May 2002 Mobilization, 33 percent of respondents recalled hearing or 

seeing about special enforcement and only 30 percent after the November 2002 Mobilization. These 

results are not surprising, given that prior to May 2003, a nationwide advertisement purchase did not 

occur. 

 Another interesting finding is that pre-surveys measured awareness at nearly the same level each 

wave (14 to 16 percent), indicating that relatively low levels of publicity and information were focused on 

safety belt enforcement in the months between mobilizations. 

Figure 14. Percent Who had Heard or Seen Special Enforcement Efforts 

15% 14% 16%

33% 30%

40%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

May 02 Nov 02 May 03

Before

After

Mobilization
23

 Click It or Ticket has become the most used safety belt enforcement campaign slogan. Currently, 

32 states use it as their principle slogan. Motorists’ recall of the CIOT slogan has increased each National 

Mobilization, even though prior to 2003, there was no national CIOT campaign. As previously explained, 

the entire national media buy for May 2003 broadcast CIOT repeatedly to the nation’s motorists, and 

recognition increased most during the May 2003 Mobilization, 26 points and post-surveys measured the 

highest recall to date, 61 percent. 

Figure 15. Percent Who had Heard or Seen CIOT Message in Past 30 Days 

Perception of Law Enforcement 

 The May 2003, National Mobilization experienced the largest increase in proportion of 

respondents who agree “police are writing more tickets now than before.” The May 2003 increase 

equaled 13 points, compared to an 8 point increase in May 2002, and a 6 point increase in November 

2002. At the end of the May 2003 National Mobilization, nearly half of respondents (47 percent) 

believed police were doing more safety belt enforcement. 

Figure 16. Percent Who Agree Police are Writing More Tickets Now 

19%

35% 35% 35%

40%

61%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

May 02 Nov 02 May 03

Before

After

Mobilization

35% 36% 34%

43% 42%

47%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

May 02 Nov 02 May 03

Percent

Before

After

Mobilization
24

 Previous National Mobilizations experienced no appreciative change in the perceived likelihood 

of being ticketed for not wearing a safety belt. The six point increase in 2003 was the first measured 

statistically significant improvement. 

Figure 17. Perceived Likelihood of Being Ticketed for Not Wearing a Safety Belt 

Opinion of Safety Belt Law 

 Surveys measured only slight increases in the proportion of respondents that thought it very/fairly 

important for the state to enforce the safety belt law more strictly. On average, across all survey waves, 

77 percent of respondents agreed that strict enforcement is very/fairly important. Respondents were most 

likely to say so after the May 2003 Mobilization (80 percent). All three pre/post surveys indicated that a 

high level of public support persists, even after the public was exposed to widespread, enforcementcentered, publicity and enforcement. 

Figure 18. Percent Who think it is Important for State to Enforce Safety Belt Law More Strictly 

76% 77% 74%

78% 76%

80%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

May 02 Nov 02 May 03

Before

After

Mobilization

31% 29% 28%

32% 31% 34%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

May 02 Nov 02 May 03

Before

After

Mobilization
25

 Surveys have measured relatively little change in the percentage of respondents indicating that a 

primary enforcement safety belt law should be allowed. Nearly seven of every ten respondents have 

consistently indicated support for a primary enforcement law. That corroborates with other data that 

indicate majority support for strong safety belt laws exists and that support does not diminish even after 

the occurrence of widespread enforcement and publicity. 

Figure 19. Percent Who Think Primary Enforcement Should be Allowed 

Driver License Office Survey 

Surveys (N=12,924) of licensed drivers were reported by 10 states so far. These states were 

Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah, and 

West Virginia. While such surveys were conducted in many other states, these particular states are a 

small sample based on those who had submitted their results to the evaluator. Driver survey data were 

collected in two waves. First wave surveys were collected during the week preceding any program 

publicity. Results of the first wave surveys are considered baseline. Second wave surveys were collected 

during the week just after publicity and enforcement ended. Results from the second wave surveys are 

considered post. 

Driver surveys included questions about self reported safety belt use, exposure to messages 

concerning safety belt enforcement, perceived risk of a ticket for not using a safety belt, and program 

slogan recognition (see example of questionnaires in Appendix A). Survey questions were ordered and 

worded similarly among the 10 states, with only minor modifications to names of states, type of law, and 

names of law enforcement agencies as they appear on the questionnaire. Order and wording was not 

changed so that pre-to-post differences could be observed. 

General Survey results are presented in Table 6. 

The driver survey included questions about exposure to messages concerning safety belts and 

safety belt enforcement. Questions also asked respondents what sources of information they encountered. 

Survey results indicated that the public became aware of new messages focusing on safety belts. 

Respondents were asked if they had recently seen or heard a safety belt message. Over the course of the 

May Mobilization, awareness of new messages increased 23 percentage points (from 61 to 84 percent). 

Baseline surveys indicated that nearly half (49 percent) of respondents recognized the Click It or Ticket 

68% 66% 67% 67%

71% 70%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

May 02 Nov 02 May 03

Before

After

Mobilization
26

slogan. That proportion increased by 20 percentage points, to 69 percent, over the course of the 

mobilization. 

Respondents were asked the more specific question have you seen or heard about police 

enforcement towards safety belt use. The baseline survey found about a third of the survey respondents 

had. That proportion nearly doubled in the post survey (58 percent), indicating that enforcement centered 

messages were widely received. 

Respondents were also asked to identify sources of safety belt information they had encountered. 

Respondents identified television as the prime conduit before and after CIOT. Respondents also 

identified radio as a prevalent source, but not to the extent of television. Respondents identified the 

newspaper, but to an even lesser extent than radio. Between the time of the baseline and post surveys, 

television exposure increased most. That is not surprising given the magnitude of the effort to place paid 

advertisements on television broadcasts. 

The driver survey also included questions regarding perceived enforcement and if a personal 

experience occurred involving safety belt enforcement. Respondents were asked to indicate how strictly 

they think their State Police and local police enforce the safety belt law. Respondents perceived State 

Police as more strict when it comes to safety belt law enforcement. A larger proportion of respondents 

indicated State Police as “very strict,” compared to local police, and that was true in every state and 

evident in both survey waves. Measures of perceived police strictness did not change over the course of 

the May 2003 Mobilization, at least not in the Driver Licensing Office Survey. Although, as presented 

above, telephone survey results did show increases among various measures of perceived enforcement, 

including a belief that police are writing more tickets and increased risk of a ticket.

 The driver survey also asked respondents questions regarding personal encounters with police 

enforcement of safety belt laws. The first question asked respondents if they had experienced 

enforcement focused on safety belts in the past month. The second question asked respondents if they 

have ever received a ticket for not using a safety belt. A small but noticeable increase occurred in the 

proportion of respondents who reported experience with safety belt enforcement (13 to 17 percent). In 

regard to having received a ticket for not using a safety belt, a relatively low number of respondents 

indicated they had (13 percent) and that did not change over time. 

Several significant correlations resulted from comparing pre to post changes in the DMV results 

with other program results. These analyses compared the changes in the responses from those respondents 

who filled out questionnaires prior to the mobilization to those who filled out questionnaires afterwards 

with other self reported responses and with other program results (e.g. media dollars spent per person, 

number of belt tickets written per person). These correlations establish a relationship between both 

degree of enforcement and media and self-reported and measured behaviors. 

 

 Change in pre to post self reported belt use was significantly correlated (r = .633, p = .049) with 

whether or not the respondent had heard a belt message. That is, the greater the change in self reported 

belt use the greater the change from pre to post campaign in the percentage of people who reported 

hearing a belt message. This result can be interpreted to suggest that media penetration does affect self 

reported belt use. Further investigation suggests that the effect is more influenced by TV than radio, 

although affected by both. The change in percentage of people who reported hearing the message on TV 

was significantly correlated (r = .891, p = .001) with change in self reported belt change as was the 

change in having heard a message on the radio (r = .716, p = .02). The change in the percentage of people 

having heard the CIOT message specifically was related to change in self reported belt use (r = .652, p = 

.041). 
27

Results also show that pre to post change in judgments of local police strictness is correlated with 

the number of belt tickets written per person in the state (r = .612, p = .045). That is, states that reported 

writing more belt tickets per person tended to have a larger pre to post change in the percentage of 

respondents saying that the local police were “very strict.” One interpretation of this finding is that 

people seem to be aware of the higher ticket writing by police (assumedly by local police). Theoretically 

then, increased belt ticket writing may influence attitudes (e.g. police strictness) that are related to belt 

use. The stricter one perceives the police to be, the more likely that person may be to properly engage 

their safety belt. 

Another finding supports the relationship between heightened enforcement and actual safety belt 

use. In those states where there was a greater change in the number of people who reported having been 

through a police check point, there was also a higher conversion rate (r = .662, p = .037). That is, relative 

increases in the self reported experience with police enforcement efforts directed at safety belt use are 

related to the percentage of non-users who subsequently became safety belt users. Again, this suggests a 

link between perceptions of enforcement and actual belt use. 

Lastly, a near significant (p = .057) correlation exists between respondents’ change in perceived 

chances of being ticketed and the actual observed change in 2002 to 2003 belt use. That is, there is some 

evidence that the extent to which people are made to feel a change in their likelihood of being ticketed for 

non-compliance with a safety belt law, affects their actual observed change in safety belt use. States that 

had bigger changes in belt use from 2002 to 2003 tended to be those states where there was also a change 

from pre to post campaign with regards to how likely respondents felt they were to get a ticket. This 

finding has some merit despite the weak correlation. First, it should be noted that the small number of 

states’ data entered into this analysis makes it more difficult to show a significant relationship. 

Additionally, prior research has also shown such a relationship between beliefs regarding likelihood of 

being ticketed and self-reported belt use (Chaudhary, Solomon & Cosgrove, 2003). Still, one would 

expect that this relationship should strengthen with the addition of additional sates’ data. 

The correlations presented above add evidence that perceptions of heightened enforcement, and 

exposure to media indicating such enforcement, are related to self reported and observed changes in belt 

use behavior. 
28

Table 6. Pre/Post Driver License Office Survey Results (10 States*) 

Pre Post 

Pct. Point 

Change 

(6,261) (6,663) 

% % 

 

Reported "Always" uses a safety belt 68 70 +2 

 

Reported "Always" a high-likelihood of a 

safety belt ticket for non-use 23 24 +1 

 

Reported strictness of State Police as 

"Very" 28 28 0 

 

Reported strictness of Local Police as 

"Very" 25 25 0 

 

Reported ever receiving a safety belt ticket 14 13 -1 

 

Reported having read/seen/heard about 

safety belt enforcement in the past month 30 58 +28 

 

Reported personal experience with safety 

belt enforcement in past month 13 17 +4 

 

Reported recently read/seen/heard safety 

belt message 61 84 +23 

 

 Heard about safety belts on the radio 22 38 +16 

 

 Saw safety belt message on TV 42 65 +23 

 

Click it or Ticket 49 69 +20 

* States include: AL, AR, CT, IL, KY, MD, RI, SC, UT, WV 
29

 IV. DISCUSSION 

 The May 2003 National Mobilization was the largest-ever nationwide publicity and enforcement 

program to increase safety belt use. Approximately $25 million worth of paid advertisements repeatedly 

advised motorists, especially high risk 18 to 34-year old males, to wear a safety belt or receive a ticket. 

The threat of enforcement was real; law enforcement issued over one-half million safety belt citations in a 

two-week period. 

 Impressively, 41 percent of law enforcement agencies across 45 states reported the results of their 

enforcement campaign for the Mobilization. More participated, but did not share their ticketing activities. 

 Evaluation results indicated that short term and well publicized enforcement worked to improve 

safety belt use. Belt use improved after the public was exposed to the National Mobilization’s 

enforcement activities, paid advertising, and publicity. 

 Safety belt messages are fairly common throughout the year. However, enforcement centered 

messages are not. Exposure to enforcement centered messages improves during mobilizations. Fortypercent of telephone survey respondents indicated knowing of the enforcement effort. Nearly half (47 

percent) of the survey respondents after the Mobilization said they believed police were writing more 

tickets now, a 13 percentage point increase from before. Respondents also indicated higher perceived risk 

of getting a ticket after Mobilization activities. 

Telephone and Driver Licensing Office surveys indicate that the public is well aware of the Click 

It or Ticket slogan. The public remains supportive of laws and enforcement of laws aiming to improve 

safety belt use rates. Drivers became more aware of the stepped up enforcement. Television and radio 

were the most common sources of information. There is some evidence that such media penetration is 

related to observed belt usage. 

 Awareness of National Mobilizations and Click It or Ticket in particular has increased with each 

passing National Mobilization. However, the perceived likelihood of being ticketed has not changed 

appreciatively, at least nationally, across mobilizations since 2000. Increases in perceived likelihood of a 

ticket that have been achieved during Mobilizations all but disappear between subsequent campaigns. 

That is, the lack of full-time PI&E and enforcement between Mobilizations results in decreases in usage 

between waves. 

 The purpose behind sTEPs, like Click It or Ticket, are not necessarily to issue safety belt tickets 

but to convince motorists that non-use will result in a ticket. This mobilization succeeded in raising 

program awareness, and maybe more importantly, influenced public opinion that police were doing more 

about enforcing the law. Consequently, belt use increased. 

Belts are approximately 50 percent effective for preventing fatality in crashes in which motorists 

would otherwise die, and so raising belt use saves lives. It is estimated that raising use to 79 percent in 

2003 from 75 percent prevented 1,000 deaths that would have otherwise occurred in 2003. Since belts 

saved an estimated 14,000 motorists in 2002, NHTSA estimates that belts will have prevented 15,000 

deaths by the end of 2003. In saving lives and preventing injuries, belt use saves billions of dollars in 

costs to society annually. 
30

REFERENCES 

Chaudhary, N.K., Solomon, M.G. and Cosgrove, L.A. (2003). The Relationship Between Perceived Risk 

of Being Ticketed and Self-reported Seat Belt Use. Journal of Safety research (in review). 

Glassbrenner, D. (2003). Safety Belt Use in 2003. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation; 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, National Center for Statistics and Analysis, report 

number DOT HS 809 646. 

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (1994). Super success in North Carolina (Status Report). 

Arlington, Virginia. 

Jonah, B.A., Dawson, N.E., and Smith, G.A. (1982). Effects of a selective traffic enforcement program 

on safety belt usage. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 89-96. 

Solomon, M.G. (2002) Evaluation of NHTSA’s Region IV Click It or Ticket Campaign, May 2001 (Final 

Report). Washington DC: U.S. Department of Transportation; National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, report number DOT HS 809 404. 

Solomon, M.G., Nissen, W.J., and Preusser, D.F. (1999). Occupant protection special traffic enforcement 

program evaluation (Final Report). Washington DC: U.S. Department of Transportation; National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, report number DOT HS 808 884. 

Solomon, M.G. and Preusser, D.F. Evaluation of South Carolina's click it or ticket campaign (Final 

Report). Washington DC: U.S. Department of Transportation; National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, in process. 

Williams, A.F., Wells, J.K., McCartt, A.T., Preusser, D.F. (2000) "Buckle Up NOW!" an enforcement 

program to achieve high safety belt use. Journal of Safety Research, 31, 195-201. 

Williams, A.F., Lund, A.K., Preusser, D.F., Blomberg, R.D. (1987). Results of a set safety belt use law 

enforcement and publicity campaign in Elmira, New York. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 19, 243-

249. 
APPENDICES 
 A-1 APPENDIX A 

SAMPLE - DRIVER LICENSING OFFICE SURVEY 

This driver licensing office is assisting in a study about safety belts in North Carolina. Your answers to the 

following questions are voluntary and anonymous. Please complete the survey and then put it in the drop box.

1. Your sex:  Male  Female 

2. Your age:  Under 21  21-25  26-39  40-49  50-59  60 Plus 

3. Your race:  White  Black  Asian  Native American  Other 

4. Are you of Spanish/Hispanic origin?  Yes  No 

5. Your Zip Code: _______________________ 

6. About how many miles did you drive last year? 

  Less than 5,000  5,000 to 10,000  10,001 to 15,000  More than 15,000

7. What type of vehicle do you drive most often? 

  Passenger car  Pickup truck  Sport utility vehicle  Mini-van  Full-van  Other 

8. How often do you use safety belts when you drive or ride in a car, van, sport utility vehicle or pick up?

  Always  Nearly always  Sometimes  Seldom  Never 

9. What do you think the chances are of getting a ticket if you don't wear your safety belt? 

 Always  Nearly Always  Sometimes  Seldom  Never

10. Do you think the North Carolina Highway Patrol enforce the safety belt law:

  Very strictly  Somewhat strictly  Not very strictly  Rarely  Not at all 

11. Do you think local police enforce the safety belt law:

  Very strictly  Somewhat strictly  Not very strictly  Rarely  Not at all 

12. Have you ever received a ticket for not wearing your safety belt? 

  Yes  No 

13. In the past month, have you seen or heard about a checkpoint where police were looking at safety belt use?

  Yes  No 

14. In the past month, have you gone through a checkpoint where police were looking at safety belt use?

  Yes  No 

15. Have you recently read, seen or heard anything about safety belts in North Carolina?

  Yes  No 

 If yes, where did you see or hear about it? (Check all that apply):

  Newspaper  Radio  TV  Poster  Brochure  Police checkpoint  Other 

 If yes, what did it say? ___________________________________________________________ 

 

16. Do you know the name of any safety belt enforcement program(s) in North Carolina? (check all that apply):

  No Excuses, Buckle Up  Buckle Up North Carolina  Click It or Ticket  Operation Stay Alive
 B-1 APPENDIX B 

NATIONAL TELEPHONE SURVEYS: 

May and June 2003 

Conducted by 

Schulman, Ronca and Bucuvalas, Inc. 
 B-2 APPENDIX B 

NATIONAL TELEPHONE SURVEY - BANNERS 

MAY/JUNE 2003 SAFETY BELT TRACKING STUDY 

 

Q.1 How often do you drive a motor vehicle? Almost every day, a few days a week, a few days a month, a few 

days a year, or do you never drive? 

Q.2 Is the vehicle you drive most often a car, van, motorcycle, sport utility vehicle, pickup truck, or other type of 

truck? 

Q.3 Do the safety belts in the front safety of the (car/truck/van) go across your shoulder only, across your lap only, 

or across both your shoulder and lap? 

Q.4 When driving this (car/truck/van), how often do you wear your shoulder belt? 

Q.5 When driving this (car/truck/van), how often do you wear your lap belt? 

Q.6 When was the last time you did NOT wear your safety belt when driving? 

 

Q.7 In the past 30 days, has your use of safety belts when driving (vehicle driven most often) increased, decreased, 

or stayed the same? 

 

Q.8 What caused your use of safety belts to increase? 

Q.9 Does (respondent’s state) have a law requiring safety belt use by adults? 

Q.10 Assume that you do not use your safety belt AT ALL while driving over the next six months. How likely do you 

think you will be to receive a ticket for not wearing a safety belt? 

Q.11 According to your state law, can police stop a vehicle if they observe a safety belt violation or do they have to 

observe some other offense first in order to stop the vehicle? 

Q.12 In your opinion, should police be allowed to stop a vehicle if they observe a safety belt violation when no other 

traffic laws are being broken? 

Q.13 Please tell me whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with the 

following statements? 

a) Safety belts are just as likely to harm you as help you. 

b) If I was in an accident, I would want to have my safety belt on. 

c) Police in my community generally will not bother to write tickets for safety belt violations. 

d) It is important for police to enforce the safety belt laws. 

e) Putting on a safety belt makes me worry more about being in an accident. 

f) Police in my community are writing more safety belt tickets now than they were a few months ago. 

Q.14 Yes or No--in the past 30 days, have you seen or heard of any special effort by police to ticket drivers in your 

community for safety belt violations? 

Q.15 Where did you see or hear about that special effort? 

Q.16 Was the (tv/radio) message a commercial (or advertisement), was it part of a news program, or was it 

something else? 

If state EQ Indiana or Michigan Skip to alternative Q.17, All other states except Ohio skip to Q.24. 

Q.17 Yes or no- in the past 30 days, have you seen or heard anything about the police setting up safety belt 

checkpoints where they will stop motor vehicles to check whether drivers and passengers are wearing safety belts? 

Q.18 Let me just confirm, is this the type of checkpoint that you have seen or heard about in the past 30 days? 
 B-3 APPENDIX B 

Q.19 Where did you see or hear about the police checkpoints for safety belts? 

Q.20 Was the (tv/radio) message a commercial (or advertisement), was it part of a news program, or was it 

something else? 

Q.21 In the past 30 days, did you personally see any checkpoints where police were stopping motor vehicles to see 

if drivers and passengers were wearing safety belts? 

Q.22 Let me just confirm, is this the type of checkpoint that you personally saw in the past 30 days? 

Q.23 Were you personally stopped by police at a safety belt checkpoint in the past 30 days? 

Q.24 In the past 30 days, have you seen or heard of any special effort by police to ticket drivers in your community 

if children in their vehicles are not wearing safety belts or are not in car safety seats? 

Q.25 Now, I would like to ask you a few questions about educational or other types of activities? In the past 30 

days, have you seen or heard any messages that encourage people to wear their safety belts. This could be public 

service announcements on TV, messages on the radio, signs on the road, news stories, or something else. 

Q.26 Where did you see or hear these messages? 

Q.27 Was the (tv/radio) message a commercial (or advertisement), was it part of a news program, or was it 

something else? 

Q.28 Would you say that the number of these messages you have seen or heard in the past 30 days is more than 

usual, fewer than usual, or about the same as usual? 

Q.29 Are there any advertisements or activities that you have seen or heard in the past 30 days that encouraged 

adults to make sure that children use car safety seats or safety belts? 

Q.31 Thinking about everything you have heard, how important do you think it is for [respondent’s state] to enforce 

safety belt laws for ADULTS more strictly . . . . very important, fairly important, just somewhat important, or not that 

important? 

Q.32 Do you recall hearing or seeing slogans in the past 30 days? 

Q.33 Now, I need to ask you some basic information about you and your household. What is your age? 

Q.34 Including yourself, how many persons age 16 or older are living in your household at least half of the time or 

consider it their primary residence? 

Q.35 How many children age 15 or younger are living in your household at least half of the time or consider it their 

primary residence? 

Q.36 Do you consider yourself to be Hispanic or Latino? 

Q.37 Which racial categories describe you? 

Q.38 What is the highest grade or year of school you completed? 

Q.39 Do you have more than one telephone number in your household? 

Q.40 Not including cells phones, and numbers used primarily for fax or computer lines, How many different 

telephone numbers do you have in your household? 

Q.41 Sex of Respondent 
 B-4 APPENDIX B 

NATIONAL TELEPHONE SURVEY – RESULTS 

MAY/JUNE 2003 SAFETY BELT TRACKING STUDY 

76%

11%

2% 1%

10%

78%

9%

2% 1%

11%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Almost every

day

Few days a

week

Few days a

month

Few days a

year

Never

May (N=1201) June (N=1245)

Q.1 How often do you drive a motor vehicle? Almost every day, a few days a week, a 

few days a month, a few days a year or do you never drive? Base: Total adults 

Q.2 Is the vehicle you drive most often a car, van, motorcycle, sport utility vehicle, 

pickup truck, or other type of truck? Base: Drivers 

60%

9%

1%

16% 13%

1%

60%

10%

0%

15% 12%

0%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Car Van Motorcycle Pickup

truck

SUV Other truck

May (N=1073) June (N=1117)
 B-5 APPENDIX B 

NATIONAL TELEPHONE SURVEY – RESULTS 

MAY/JUNE 2003 SAFETY BELT TRACKING STUDY 

Q.4 When driving this vehicle, how often do you wear your shoulder belt? Base: Have 

shoulder belt in primary vehicle 

Q.3 Do the safety belts in the front safety of your vehicle (usually driven) go across 

your shoulder only, across your lap only, or across both your shoulder and your lap? 

Base: Primary vehicle not a motorcycle 

7%

1%

92%

7%

2%

92%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Shoulder only Lap only Both

May (N=1065) June (N=1114)

85%

7% 2% 3% 3%

85%

8%

3% 2% 2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

All of the time Most of the

time

Some of the

time

Rarely Never

May (N=1050) June (N=1094)
 B-6 APPENDIX B 

NATIONAL TELEPHONE SURVEY – RESULTS 

MAY/JUNE 2003 SAFETY BELT TRACKING STUDY 

Q.5 When driving this (car/truck/van), how often do you wear your lap belt? Base: Have 

lap belt in primary vehicle 

Q.6 When was the last time you did NOT wear your safety belt when driving? Base: 

Have shoulder or lap belt in primary vehicle 

84%

7%

3% 2% 2%

85%

7% 4% 2% 2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

All of the time Most of the

time

Some of the

time

Rarely Never

May (N=984) June (N=1031)

10% 7% 5% 4%

72%

3%

10% 9% 7%

2%

70%

2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Past day

Past week

Past month

Past year

More than a year

Not sure/refused

May (N=1065) June (N=1113)
 B-7 APPENDIX B 

NATIONAL TELEPHONE SURVEY – RESULTS 

MAY/JUNE 2003 SAFETY BELT TRACKING STUDY 

Q.7 In the past 30 days, has your use of safety belts when driving (vehicle driven most often) 

increased, decreased, or stayed the same? Base: Have shoulder or lap belt in primary vehicle 

Q.8 What caused your use of safety belts to increase? Base: Drivers whose use of safety belts 

has increased 

5%

93%

1%

9%

90%

1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Increased* Stayed the same Decreased

May (N=1065) June (N=1113)

49%

8%

12% 13%

0%

6%

35%

29%

8%

3% 3% 1%

4%

17%

0%

20%

40%

60%

Increased awareness

Seatbelt law

Avoid ticket

In a crash

Influence/pressure

Remember more

More long distance driving

May (N=49) June (N=93)
 B-8 APPENDIX B 

NATIONAL TELEPHONE SURVEY – RESULTS 

MAY/JUNE 2003 SAFETY BELT TRACKING STUDY 

Q.9 Does (respondent’s state) have a law requiring safety belt use by adults? Base: Total 

Adults 

Q.10 Assume that you do not use your safety belt AT ALL while driving over the next 

six months. How likely do you think you will be to receive a ticket for not wearing a 

safety belt? Base: Primary vehicle not a motorcycle/State has safety belt law 

92%

2% 5%

94%

2% 4%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Yes* No Not sure

May (N=1201) June (N=1245)

28% 25%

17%

22%

34%

28%

15% 17%

7% 5%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Very likely Somewhat

likely

Somewhat

unlikely

Very unlikely Don't

know/refused

May (N=993) June (N=1050)
 B-9 APPENDIX B 

NATIONAL TELEPHONE SURVEY – RESULTS 

MAY/JUNE 2003 SAFETY BELT TRACKING STUDY 

Q.11 According to your state law, can police stop a vehicle if they observe a safety 

belt violation or do they have to observe some other offense first in order to stop the 

vehicle? Base: State has safety belt law 

Q.12 In your opinion, should police be allowed to stop a vehicle if they observe a 

safety belt violation when no other traffic laws are being broken? Base: Total adults 

62%

21%

16%

73%

15% 12%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Stop for seat belt* Other offense needed Not sure

May (N=1112) June (N=1165)

67%

29%

70%

26%

3% 4%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Should be allowed* Should not be allowed Don't know/refused

May (N=1201) June (N=1245)
 B-10 APPENDIX B 

NATIONAL TELEPHONE SURVEY – RESULTS 

MAY/JUNE 2003 SAFETY BELT TRACKING STUDY 

Q.13a Safety belts are just as likely to harm you as help you? Base: Total adults 

Q.13b If I was in an accident, I would want to have my safety belt on. Base: Total 

adults 

15%

21% 21%

40%

15% 19% 19%

42%

3% 4%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Strongly

agree

Somewhat

agree

Somewhat

disagree

Strongly

disagree

Don't

know/refused

May (N=1201) June (N=1245)

84%

9%

2% 3%

87%

7%

1% 3% 2% 2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Strongly

agree

Somewhat

agree

Somewhat

disagree

Strongly

disagree

Don't

know/refused

May (N=1201) June (N=1245)
 B-11 APPENDIX B 

NATIONAL TELEPHONE SURVEY – RESULTS 

MAY/JUNE 2003 SAFETY BELT TRACKING STUDY 

Q.13c Police in my community generally will not bother to write tickets for safety belt 

violations? Base: Total adults 

Q.13d It is important for police to enforce the safety belt laws? Base: Total adults 

16%

22% 18% 22% 23%

15% 18% 17%

26% 25%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Strongly

agree

Somewhat

agree

Somewhat

disagree

Strongly

disagree

Don't

know/refused

May (N=1201) June (N=1245)

60%

23%

8% 8%

66%

19%

7% 7% 2% 1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Strongly

agree

Somewhat

agree

Somewhat

disagree

Strongly

disagree

Don't

know/refused

May (N=1201) June (N=1245)
 B-12 APPENDIX B 

NATIONAL TELEPHONE SURVEY – RESULTS 

MAY/JUNE 2003 SAFETY BELT TRACKING STUDY 

Q.13e Putting on a safety belt makes me worry about being in an accident? Base: Total 

adults 

Q.13f Police in my community are writing more safety belt tickets now than they 

were a few months ago. Base: Total adults 

8% 5%

16%

69%

9% 5%

15%

68%

2% 3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Strongly

agree

Somewhat

agree

Somewhat

disagree

Strongly

disagree

Don't

know/refused

May (N=1201) June (N=1245)

18% 16% 13% 11%

42%

27%

20%

7% 7%

39%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Strongly

agree

Somewhat

agree

Somewhat

disagree

Strongly

disagree

Don't

know/refused

May (N=1201) June (N=1245)
 B-13 APPENDIX B 

NATIONAL TELEPHONE SURVEY – RESULTS 

MAY/JUNE 2003 SAFETY BELT TRACKING STUDY 

Q.14 In the past 30 days, have you seen or heard of any special effort by police to 

ticket drivers in your community for safety belt violations? Base: Total adults 

Q.15 Where did you see or hear about that special effort? Base: Have seen or heard 

about special efforts to ticket for safety belts 

16%

40%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Yes*

May (N=1201) June (N=1245)

28%

11%

9%

22%

23%

11%

50%

20%

10%

14%

13%

13%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

TV

Radio

Friend

Newspaper

Observed

Billboards/signs

May (N=174) June (N=494)
 B-14 APPENDIX B 

NATIONAL TELEPHONE SURVEY – RESULTS 

MAY/JUNE 2003 SAFETY BELT TRACKING STUDY 

Q.16 Was the TV/radio message a commercial/advertisement, part of a news 

program, or something else? Base: Have seen or heard message in the past 30 days 

on radio or television 

Q.17-Q23 not asked in May 2003 or June 2003. 

Q.24 In the past 30 days, have you seen or heard of any special effort by police to 

ticket drivers in your community if children in their vehicles are not wearing safety 

belts or are not in car seats? Base: Total adults 

34%

58%

2%

55%

49%

0%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Commercial News program Other

May (N=66) June (N=299)

24% 28%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Yes*

May (N=1201) June (N=1245)
 B-15 APPENDIX B 

NATIONAL TELEPHONE SURVEY – RESULTS 

MAY/JUNE 2003 SAFETY BELT TRACKING STUDY 

Q.25 In the past 30 days, have you seen or heard any messages that encourage 

people to wear their safety belts? Base: Total adults 

Q.26 Where did you see or hear these messages? Base: Have seen/heard messages 

encouraging people to wear safety belts 

73%

82%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Yes*

May (N=1201) June (N=1245)

62%

24%

2%

8%

12%

42%

65%

27%

2%

8%

4%

36%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

TV

Radio

Friend

Newspaper

Observed

Billboard/sign

May (N=842) June (N=1007)
 B-16 APPENDIX B 

NATIONAL TELEPHONE SURVEY – RESULTS 

MAY/JUNE 2003 SAFETY BELT TRACKING STUDY 

Q.27 Was the TV/radio message a commercial/advertisement, part of a news 

program, or something else? Base: Have seen/heard messages encouraging people to 

wear safety belts on TV/radio 

Q.28 Would you say that the number of messages you have seen or heard in the past 

30 days is more than usual, fewer than usual or about the same as usual? Base: Have 

seen/heard messages encouraging people to wear safety belts 

75%

22%

2%

77%

25%

1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Commercial News program Other

May (N=598) June (N=786)

14%

80%

5%

41%

54%

2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

More* About the same Fewer

May (N=842) June (N=1007)
 B-17 APPENDIX B 

NATIONAL TELEPHONE SURVEY – RESULTS 

MAY/JUNE 2003 SAFETY BELT TRACKING STUDY 

Q.29 Are there any advertisements or activities you have seen or heard in the past 30 

days that encouraged adults to make sure their children use car seats or safety belts? 

Base: Total adults 

Q.30 What did you see or hear? Base: Have seem/heard ads/activities in past 30 

days encouraging adults to make children use car seats/safety belts 

37%

44%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Yes*

May (N=1201) June (N=1245)

14%

4%

4%

17%

2%

28%

52%

14%

5%

13%

11%

9%

7%

13%

2%

28%

50%

13%

3%

14%

0% 20% 40% 60%

Fatalities/injuries

Enforcement

Law

Seat belt advice

Seat belt activities/promotion/awareness

Child safety seats

Media

Specific ad recall

Miscellaneous

Don't know/refused

May (N=440) June (N=545)
 B-18 APPENDIX B 

NATIONAL TELEPHONE SURVEY – RESULTS 

MAY/JUNE 2003 SAFETY BELT TRACKING STUDY 

Q.31 Thinking about everything you have heard, how important do you think it is for 

[STATE] to enforce safety belt laws for adults more strictly? Base: Total adults 

Q.32 Do you recall hearing or seeing the following slogans in the past 30 days? 

Base: Total adults 

56%

20%

13% 10%

62%

18%

9% 10%

1% 1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Very

important

Fairly

important

Somewhat

important

Not that

important

Don't

know/refused

May (N=1201) June (N=1245)

81%

35%

39%

23%

50%

16%

20%

28%

51%

7%

83%

61%

42%

22%

54%

16%

23%

52%

57%

4%

4%

6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Friends Don't Let Friends Drive Drunk

Click It Or Ticket*

Buckle Up America

Children In Back

You Drink, You Drive, You Lose

Didn't See It Coming? No One Ever Does

Get The Keys*

Click It Or Ticket [State]*

Buckle Up [State]*

Four Steps For Kids*

None*

June (N=1245)

May (N=1201)
 B-19 APPENDIX B 

NATIONAL TELEPHONE SURVEY – RESULTS 

MAY/JUNE 2003 SAFETY BELT TRACKING STUDY 

Q.32 Do you recall hearing or seeing the Click It or Ticket Slogan in the past 30 

days? Base: Total adults 

Q.33 What is your age? Base: Total adults 

35%

61%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Yes*

May (N=1201) June (N=1245)

44.2 43.2 45.2 44.1 43.1 45.1

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

Total* Males Females

May (N=1201) June (N=1245)
 B-20 APPENDIX B 

NATIONAL TELEPHONE SURVEY – RESULTS 

MAY/JUNE 2003 SAFETY BELT TRACKING STUDY 

Q.34 Including yourself, how many persons aged 16 or older are living in your 

household at least half of the time or consider it their primary residence? Base: Total 

adults 

Q.35 How many children aged 15 or younger are living in your household at least half 

of the time or consider it their primary residence? Base: Total adults 

2.5 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.5

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

Total* Males Females

May (N=1201) June (N=1245)

0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

Total* Males Females

May (N=1201) June (N=1245)
 B-21 APPENDIX B 

NATIONAL TELEPHONE SURVEY – RESULTS 

MAY/JUNE 2003 SAFETY BELT TRACKING STUDY 

Q.36 Do you consider yourself to be Hispanic or Latino? 

Q.37 Which of the following racial categories describes you? Base: Total adults 

Q.38 What is the highest grade or year of school you completed? Base: Total adults 

3%

3%

10%

74%

11%

3%

3%

10%

74%

13%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

American Indian

Asian

African American

White*

Latino

May (N=1201) June (N=1245)

34%

24%

27%

14%

33%

25%

28%

14%

0% 20% 40%

College graduate

Some college

HS graduate

Less than HS

graduate

May (N=1201) June (N=1245)
 B-22 APPENDIX B 

NATIONAL TELEPHONE SURVEY – RESULTS 

MAY/JUNE 2003 SAFETY BELT TRACKING STUDY 

Q.39 Do you have more than one telephone number in your household? Base: Total 

adults 

Q.41 Sex of respondent? Base: Total adults 

8% 8%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Yes*

May (N=1201) June (N=1245)

48% 52% 48% 52%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Male Female

May (N=1201) June (N=1245)