|  | *Traffic Tech*  |
|--|----------------------|
||
||

----

**SIX JURISDICTIONS UPGRADE TO PRIMARY SEAT BELT LAWS IN SIX DIFFERENT WAYS**

In his weekly radio address to the nation on December28, 1996, President Clinton asked all Americans toalways wear seat belts as a first line of defense againsttraffic injuries and fatalities and to always keepchildren ages 12 and under buckled in the back seat,where they are safest.  The President then directed theSecretary of Transportation to prepare a plan toincrease the use of seat belts nationwide.  *Buckle Up,America!* sets an ambitious goal to increase nationalseat belt use to 85 percent by the year 2000, and to 90percent by 2005. The national seat belt use ratecurrently is 69 percent.

States that have primary, or standard, seat belt lawstypically have higher seat belt use rates than states withsecondary laws.  California has achieved 90 percentand some states, like New Mexico and Oregon areapproaching 90 percent, so the nationwide goal isattainable.  Under primary enforcement, a citation canbe written whenever a law enforcement officer sees anunbelted driver or passenger.  Under secondaryenforcement, an officer must first stop a motorist foranother infraction.  In three states that upgraded toprimary enforcement, belt use immediately increasedby 8 to 17 percentage points.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration(NHTSA) sponsored a study by Low+Associates ofChevy Chase, Maryland to document the legislativehistory in six jurisdictions that recently upgraded theirseat belt laws to primary enforcement.  California(1992), Louisiana (1995), Georgia (1996), Maryland(1997), Oklahoma (1997), and the District ofColumbia (1997) each had a unique political situation. The researchers gathered information from billsponsors, committee chairs, legislators, lobbyists, lawenforcement officials, Governors' offices, nationalsafety organizations, and media representatives.

**Drop Secondary Enforcement Law Status**

In these jurisdictions, a multi-year perspectiveinfluenced the focus of primary enforcementlegislation.  Rather than lobby for a complete packageof upgraded seat belt provisions or adopt a modelsafety belt law, all dropped secondary enforcementprovisions, thereby giving belt laws primary status. Most did not significantly change other provisions. California expanded its law to cover pickup trucks,Oklahoma lowered its fine to $20, and the District ofColumbia added coverage for all vehicle classes andseating positions, a $50 fine, and a 2-point sanction onthe driver's license.  It's the only jurisdiction in thecountry that puts points on a driver's license for a seatbelt violation.  

**Key Players**

*Governor* -- The Governor's political support for,or tacit acceptance of, the primary seat belt legislationwas necessary to move the legislation forward.  Nolegislator wanted to fight for passage through bothhouses only to face the Governor's veto.  

*Sponsors* -- The most effective sponsors of thislegislation were those with standing in the minoritycommunity, appropriate committee assignments, andpersonal interest in the success of the safety beltlegislation.  

*Committee Chair* --The ability of the CommitteeChair to move the bill out of committee was, in moststates, the key challenge to its passage.  Thus, theassignment of the bill to a committee with asupportive Committee Chair was a crucial componentof effective legislative strategy.

*Grassroots Traffic Safety Groups* --  With long-term vested interests in state and local politicalprocesses, these groups were often the primary forcebehind the passage of the original secondary belt law,and had extensive experience with legislators on theirstate's traffic safety issues.

*National Safety Advocacy Groups* --  These groupswere able to link local groups with allies who couldprovide additional support, resources, and insight, andthey often infused statewide coalitions with skill andmoney.  In a few jurisdictions, conflict arose betweenthe national and grassroot groups.

*Lobbyists* -- Lobbyists were influential, often ingenerating the legislative breakthroughs to move thelegislation out of committee.  In some jurisdictions,coalitions were concerned that the lobbyists werewilling to negotiate on issues that the coalitions foundunacceptable, while on the other hand, the lobbyistsfelt constrained in their ability to broker a deal theybelieved would facilitate passage.

*Law Enforcement* --  In all jurisdictions, legislatorslooked to law enforcement officials to validate theimportance of the primary law's passage.  Key issuesthat law enforcement officials addressed were theimpact of the legislation on lowering the fatality rate,the promise that harassment would not be tolerated,and the need to eliminate the aberration that thesecondary standard of enforcement introduced.

*Media* --  Media were important in generating broadpublic support for the enforcement of seat belt laws,but were not directly relevant to the internal politicalprocesses, according to legislators. 

*NHTSA* -- In some jurisdictions, NHTSA providedstatistics on belt use, injury and fatality rates, andmedical costs accrued by the unbelted who wereinjured.  In others, senior NHTSA officials wereinvited to testify

at hearings.  Each jurisdiction was sensitive to Federalinvolvement, given that government intrusion was akey opposition concern.

**Opposition Arguments**

Legislative opposition was primarily fueled by twoconcerns -- the potential for the harassment ofminorities, and government infringement on individualrights.  Understanding opposition arguments led toopportunities for compromise.  A range of responsesincluded promises by law enforcement officials toprovide equitable enforcement, reports thatharassment had not occurred in other primary lawstates, bill sponsorship by minority legislators, andadding a sunset provision or restricting police fromusing a belt stop for other enforcement purposes. Statistics showing the number of lives and amount oftax dollars saved through seat belt use were used toargue that lower public expenditures for medical careand reduced need for tax revenues offset the potentialintrusiveness of standard enforcement.

**Lessons Learned**

Organizations that wish to upgrade their own state'ssecondary belt law will find the lessons learned in thisreport useful.  The concepts might also apply to othertraffic safety issues.  The report includesrecommendations for future research.

**HOW TO ORDER**

For a copy of ***Legislative History of RecentPrimary Safety Belt Use Laws,***** write to the Officeof Research and Traffic Records, NHTSA, NTS-31,400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC  20590,send a fax to (202) 366-7096, or download fromNHTSA's homepage *http://www.nhtsa.dot. gov*  Douglas Gurin was the contract manager, 

e-mail *dgurin@nhtsa.dot.gov*

U.S. Departmentof Transportation**National Highway****Traffic Safety****Administration**400 Seventh Street, S.W. NTS-31Washington, DC  20590

**Traffic Tech** is a publication to disseminateinformation about traffic safety programs,including evaluations, innovative programs,and new publications.  Feel free to copy it as you wish.If you would like to receive a copy contact:Linda Cosgrove, Ph.D., Editor, Evaluation StaffTraffic Safety Programs(202) 366-2759, fax (202) 366-7096E-MAIL:   lcosgrove@nhtsa.dot.gov