United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Subcommittee on

Transportation and Related Agencies,

Committee on Appropriations, House of

Representatives

January 1996 MOTOR VEHICLE

SAFETY

Comprehensive State

Programs Offer Best

Opportunity for

Increasing Use of

Safety Belts

GAO/RCED-96-24

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Resources, Community, and

Economic Development Division

B-260214 

January 3, 1996

The Honorable Frank R. Wolf

Chairman

The Honorable Ronald D. Coleman

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Transportation and

 Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

As requested, this report describes the nation’s progress in achieving goals for the use of safety

belts in motor vehicles, assesses the strategies used most successfully by some states to

increase the use of safety belts, and identifies federal strategies that could help increase this

use. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that 10,000 deaths, 200,000

injuries, and $20 billion in costs to society could be avoided annually if all of the occupants of

motor vehicles wore safety belts. This report presents a matter for congressional consideration

and a recommendation to the Secretary of Transportation aimed at further increasing the use of

safety belts.

We are sending copies of the report to the Secretary of Transportation and interested

congressional committees. We will also make copies available to others upon request.

Please call me at (202) 512-2834 if you or your staff have any questions. Major contributors to

this report are listed in appendix II.

Sincerely yours,

John H. Anderson, Jr.

Director, Transportation and

 Telecommunications Issues
Executive Summary

Purpose Traffic accidents annually result in over 40,000 deaths and over

$130 billion in costs to society. Each year, about 20,000 of the people who

die and another 600,000 people who are injured were not using safety

belts. The Department of Transportation’s (DOT) National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA) believes that increasing the use of safety

belts is the most effective way to lower the nation’s death toll from traffic

accidents. NHTSA estimates that 10,000 deaths, 200,000 injuries, and

$20 billion in costs to society could be avoided annually if all of the

occupants of motor vehicles wore safety belts.

To assist federal and state deliberations on safety belt programs, the

Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on

Transportation and Related Agencies, House Committee on

Appropriations, asked GAO to determine (1) the nation’s progress in

achieving goals for the use of safety belts, (2) the strategies used most

successfully by some states to increase the use of safety belts, and

(3) federal strategies that could help increase this use.

Background For the last 30 years, the federal government has had an active policy of

reducing highway deaths and injuries by encouraging the use of safety

belts. In 1968, DOT required that seat belts be installed on all new

automobiles sold in the United States. DOT has also worked with the states

to encourage the occupants of motor vehicles to “buckle up.” However,

NHTSA has reported that only about 11 percent of people used safety belts

until the states adopted laws mandating belt use in the mid-1980s. The

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) provided

grants and penalties to encourage the states to enact laws or improve the

enforcement of their existing laws mandating the use of safety belts. As of

December 1, 1995, 48 states and the District of Columbia had laws

mandating the use of safety belts by some occupants of certain types of

motor vehicles. New Hampshire and Maine had no such law.

In May 1992, GAO reported1

 that numerous studies revealed that using

safety belts generally reduced the rates of fatalities and serious injuries by

50 to 75 percent in traffic accidents and that fatalities were 5 to 20 percent

lower in the states with laws on safety belt use than they were in the states

without such laws. Also, studies of hospital costs showed that the crash

victims who had not used belts incurred medical costs that were 60 to

80 percent higher than those of the victims who had used belts. The

1

Highway Safety: Safety Belt Use Laws Save Lives and Reduce Costs to Society (GAO/RCED-92-106,

May 15, 1992).

Page 2 GAO/RCED-96-24 Increasing Use of Safety Belts
Executive Summary

general public (through insurance premiums and tax-supported

government programs) paid over half of these costs. GAO concluded that

state laws mandating safety belt use should be strengthened.

Results in Brief NHTSA reported rates of safety belt use of 62 percent in 1992 and 67 percent

in 1994. NHTSA recognized that it could not precisely measure belt use

nationwide because its methodology relied on individual state surveys that

did not measure belt use consistently. In late 1994, the agency conducted a

special nationwide survey to gather more data on the use of restraints.

This survey found the rate of safety belt use to be only 58 percent. NHTSA’s

survey suggests that while the use of safety belts has increased

substantially from the 11 percent reported in 1982, considerable progress

is still needed if DOT is to meet its current goal of 75-percent use of safety

belts by 1997.

The four states—California, Hawaii, North Carolina, and

Washington—that have achieved rates of over 80-percent use of safety

belts have comprehensive programs, including strong laws on the

mandatory use of safety belts, visible and aggressive enforcement of these

laws, and vigorous programs to inform and educate the public. Most of the

successful states have “primary enforcement” laws, meaning that

enforcement officials can stop and ticket a vehicle’s occupants solely for

not using their safety belts. California reported an increase in safety belt

use of 13 percentage points within 1 year after changing to a primary

enforcement law from a secondary one (which allows a vehicle’s

occupants to be ticketed for not using safety belts only if they have been

stopped for another violation). Ten states have primary enforcement laws,

while 39 states (including the District of Columbia) have secondary

enforcement laws.

Several federal actions could increase the use of safety belts. An effective

federal strategy would be to encourage the states to have comprehensive

programs that include all the elements that work together to increase

safety belt use—primary enforcement laws with aggressive enforcement,

requirements that all occupants of vehicles that have belts installed use

them, fines that discourage noncompliance, and public education. The

current federal policy, contained in the Intermodal Surface Transportation

Efficiency Act of 1991, encourages the states to have laws mandating seat

belt use by the occupants of passenger cars’ front seat. The act does not

require the occupants of passenger cars’ back seats or any occupant of a

light truck or van to use safety belts and does not specify primary or

Page 3 GAO/RCED-96-24 Increasing Use of Safety Belts
Executive Summary

secondary enforcement. Given the increased number of light trucks being

sold and the relatively low rate of belt use in these vehicles, special

attention is needed to increase the rate of belt use by the occupants of

light trucks.

Principal Findings

Safety Belt Use Has

Improved, but Great

Potential Remains

The available measures of the rates of safety belt use show large increases

nationwide since 1982, when NHTSA reported a use rate of 11 percent.

NHTSA’s estimates, however, indicate that the increase in belt use

nationwide has moderated in recent years. Although it is relatively certain

that safety belt use has increased overall, the precise rate of belt use in the

United States is unknown. NHTSA recognized that its estimate of 67-percent

use in 1994 might not accurately represent the nationwide use rate

because this estimate was based on state surveys that used different

methodologies and thus did not measure belt use consistently. For

example, 22 states surveyed only passenger cars, while 20 states surveyed

cars, light trucks, and vans. Also, some states counted only the drivers’ use

of safety belts, while others included other passengers’ use as well. To

supplement the state surveys and to obtain additional data on the use of

restraints, NHTSA conducted a nationwide survey on belt use during

October and November 1994. This survey found a nationwide use rate of

58 percent—63 percent in passenger cars and 50 percent in light trucks.

The rate for occupants of light trucks is important because these vehicles

now constitute about 40 percent of the new vehicles sold.

NHTSA could increase the reliability of the national average based on the

state surveys if the agency developed tighter guidelines for the surveys and

if the states consistently used those guidelines. However, these changes

are unlikely to occur, since the states’ laws on safety belt use vary

significantly and NHTSA no longer offers financial incentives to encourage

the states to improve their surveys. Using state surveys and the 1994

nationwide survey, NHTSA has estimated that the rate of belt use

nationwide is either 67 or 58 percent. Given NHTSA’s estimates, a

substantial increase in belt use must occur if DOT’s goal of 75-percent belt

use by 1997 is to be met.

Page 4 GAO/RCED-96-24 Increasing Use of Safety Belts
Executive Summary

Successful State Programs

Contain Several Key

Components

Wide differences in the states’ laws, enforcement, and other activities

concerning safety belts have contributed to belt use rates in 1994 ranging

from a low of 32 percent to a high of 84 percent, according to reports by

the states. Four states reported rates of over 80-percent belt use, while six

reported rates of less than 50-percent use. Those states that have been

most successful in increasing belt use generally have primary enforcement

laws, visible and aggressive enforcement, and active public information

and education programs. Of the 10 states GAO visited, the 3 states with

primary enforcement laws averaged rates of belt use about 20 percentage

points higher than the 6 states with secondary enforcement laws.

California is the only state where recent data show the effect of switching

from a secondary to a primary enforcement law. That state reported an

increase in safety belt use of 13 percentage points within 1 year

(1993) after changing its law from secondary to primary enforcement and

informing motorists of the change through news coverage. California

officials said that enforcement activity increased only slightly, while belt

use increased substantially because of an increased understanding on the

part of the public that ticketing could occur. The states’ estimates of belt

use for 1994 show that use in the states with primary enforcement laws

averaged 15 percentage points higher than use in the states with secondary

enforcement laws.

Through concentrated enforcement efforts, many of the states GAO visited

were able to substantially increase the use of safety belts. For example,

North Carolina, a state with a primary enforcement law, reported an

increase in its belt use rate from 65 to 80 percent in 1993 as a result of an

active program of operating safety belt checkpoints throughout the state.

Also, Idaho, a state with a secondary enforcement law, reported an

increase in its rate of belt use from 35 to 53 percent over a 2-year period as

a result of increased enforcement. Public information and education

campaigns are also very important for increasing safety belt use. For

example, California used a concentrated information and education

campaign between November 1989 and November 1990 and reported an

increase in belt use from 42 to 52 percent.

Improving Federal

Strategies for Increasing

Belt Use

The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 encourages

the states to have laws mandating safety belt use by the occupants of

passenger cars’ front seat. Those states not having such laws must transfer

up to 3 percent of their federal-aid highway funds to their state highway

safety programs. The act does not specify whether (1) the state law should

involve primary or secondary enforcement, (2) occupants of other vehicles

Page 5 GAO/RCED-96-24 Increasing Use of Safety Belts
Executive Summary

such as light trucks and vans or all occupants of any vehicle equipped with

safety belts should be included, or (3) fines should be assessed against

violators of the belt use laws. Both NHTSA and the National Transportation

Safety Board have strongly supported the use of primary enforcement by

all states.

Since the enactment of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency

Act in 1991, seven states that had no law have adopted secondary

enforcement laws. Four states that had laws have revised them: Two of

these states changed from primary to secondary enforcement laws, and

two changed from secondary to primary enforcement laws. Fines for not

using safety belts have remained low. Only four states assess fines over

$25—one more than GAO reported in 1992. Also, in 1992 the laws in 17

states did not require the occupants of light trucks or vans to use belts,

while the laws in 7 states do not require it now. Light trucks are an

increasing problem because of their unfavorable rates of rollover, ejection

of occupants, and safety belt use and because increasing numbers of these

vehicles are being sold.

Several actions could increase the use of safety belts. The House

Committee on Appropriations recently directed NHTSA, as part of its 1996

program, to develop and distribute a model safety belt law in order to

more aggressively encourage seat belt use nationwide. In addition, the

states could implement comprehensive belt use programs by enacting laws

that provide for

• primary enforcement, so that enforcing safety belt laws does not depend

on enforcing other traffic safety laws;

• coverage of all occupants in all vehicles with belts installed, including the

occupants of passenger cars’ rear seats and the occupants of light trucks

and vans; and

• aggressive enforcement and higher fines to encourage belt use.

Strong federal involvement has the advantage of facilitating the

nationwide implementation of comprehensive strategies that have proven

successful in the states in increasing belt use and reducing deaths, injuries,

and the costs to society. A disadvantage is that the states would have less

discretion to structure their own programs.

Page 6 GAO/RCED-96-24 Increasing Use of Safety Belts
Executive Summary

Matters for

Congressional

Consideration

Increased seat belt use has the potential to avoid thousands of deaths and

serious injuries and save billions of dollars in medical costs, lost

productivity, and other expenses that result annually when the occupants

of motor vehicles do not use safety belts. The federal government’s role in

encouraging seat belt use is ultimately a policy decision for the Congress.

Current federal legislation provides for both grants and penalties to

encourage the states to enact seat belt laws or improve the enforcement of

existing laws. Comprehensive programs that include primary enforcement

laws, aggressive enforcement, and vigorous public education offer the best

opportunity for increasing belt use. If the Congress wants to promote such

programs nationwide, it could encourage the states to adopt primary

enforcement laws that cover all the occupants of all the vehicles in which

belts are installed. Those states that do not enact such comprehensive

laws could continue to be subject to the provision in the Intermodal

Surface Transportation Efficiency Act requiring a transfer of up to

3 percent of their federal-aid highway funds to their state highway safety

programs.

Recommendation to

the Secretary of

Transportation

In view of the large difference in the rates of seat belt use between the

occupants of passenger cars and those of light trucks, we recommend that

the Department of Transportation provide special emphasis and targeted

programs to increase the use of safety belts by the occupants of light

trucks.

Agency Comments GAO provided copies of a draft of this report to DOT for its comments. GAO

met with agency officials, including the Director, Office of Occupant

Protection, NHTSA. These officials agreed with GAO’s findings, conclusions,

matter for congressional consideration, and recommendation. The officials

provided a number of editorial and technical comments, which have been

incorporated into the report where appropriate.

Page 7 GAO/RCED-96-24 Increasing Use of Safety Belts
Contents

Executive Summary 2

Chapter 1 

Introduction

10

High Costs of Traffic Accidents and Nonuse of Safety Belts 10

History of Safety Belts 11

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 12

Chapter 2 

Safety Belt Use Has

Increased, but

National Goals Have

Not Been Met

15

NHTSA’s Data Indicate Increases in Safety Belt Use 15

67-Percent Belt Use Rate for 1994 Is Not Reliable 20

NHTSA’s Most Recent Survey Reveals 58-Percent Rate of Belt

Use

22

Conclusions 23

Chapter 3 

Primary Enforcement

Laws and Aggressive

Enforcement Are Key

to Increased Belt Use

24

Successful State Safety Belt Programs Contain Several

Components

24

Primary Enforcement Laws Are Key to Increasing Safety Belt Use 27

Secondary Enforcement Laws Can Increase Safety Belt Use 29

Conclusions 31

Chapter 4 

Federal Strategies for

Increasing Safety Belt

Use

32

Nonuse of Safety Belts Generates Large Costs to Society 32

Federal Efforts Have Increased Belt Use, but State Laws Are Not

Comprehensive

34

Federal Legislation Could Encourage Stronger State Safety Belt

Laws

37

Federal Role in Encouraging Safety Belt Use 38

Canadian Safety Belt Laws Are Strong and Very Successful 39

Conclusions 40

Matter for Congressional Consideration 41

Recommendation to the Secretary of Transportation 42

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 42

Appendixes Appendix I: State Laws on Safety Belt Use 44

Appendix II: Major Contributors to This Report 49

Page 8 GAO/RCED-96-24 Increasing Use of Safety Belts
Contents

Tables Table 3.1: State Laws and Reported Belt Use Rates for 10 States 25

Table 4.1: Examples of Differences in States’ Safety Belt Laws 36

Figures Figure 1.1: Unbelted Dummy in Crash 11

Figure 2.1: Safety Belt Laws and Use Rates 16

Figure 2.2: Nationwide Rates of Safety Belt Use 18

Figure 3.1: Trends in Safety Belt Use for Three States With

Primary Enforcement Laws

26

Figure 3.2: Trends in Safety Belt Use for Six States With

Secondary Enforcement Laws

27

Abbreviations

CODES Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System

DOT Department of Transportation

FARS Fatal Accident Reporting System

GAO General Accounting Office

GES General Estimates System

ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

NOPUS National Occupant Protection Use Survey

NORP National Occupant Restraint Program

NTSB National Transportation Safety Board

Page 9 GAO/RCED-96-24 Increasing Use of Safety Belts
Chapter 1 

Introduction

The use of safety belts has long been considered an effective way to

reduce deaths and injuries on the nation’s highways. The Department of

Transportation (DOT) estimates that 10,000 additional lives could be saved

annually if all of the occupants of motor vehicles used safety belts. Safety

belt technology has existed for more than a century, but belts were not

installed in new cars sold in the United States until the mid-1960s. Even

after the belts were available, relatively few people used them. In 1984,

New York became the first state to enact a law mandating the use of safety

belts. Other states soon enacted similar laws. Currently, 48 states and the

District of Columbia have some form of law on using belts. DOT’s National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has estimated that safety

belt use increased from 11 percent in 1982 to 67 percent in 1994.

High Costs of Traffic

Accidents and Nonuse

of Safety Belts

More than 40,000 people have died in traffic accidents in the United States

almost every year since 1960. In 1966, 50,894 fatalities occurred on the

highways; in 1994, about 40,700 people died. Although crashes of airplanes

and trains receive more attention from the media, the number of highway

fatalities far exceeds those that occur in all other modes of transportation

combined. NHTSA estimates that annually

• about 20,000 occupants of motor vehicles die in crashes while not using

safety belts,

• about 600,000 occupants are injured in crashes while not using safety

belts,

• more people are killed or seriously injured in road crashes than are the

victims of crimes, and

• traffic crashes cost society over $130 billion annually.

NHTSA estimates that from 1982 through 1994, 65,290 lives were saved by

safety belts, and about 1.5 million moderate to critical injuries were

prevented. Despite these successes, enormous costs are still generated

when people do not use safety belts. NHTSA reported in June 1994 that not

using belts results in 10,000 deaths and 200,000 moderate to critical

injuries annually.1 NHTSA estimates that these deaths and injuries cost

society $20 billion annually in medical costs, lost productivity, and other

injury-related expenses.

1

Estimating the Benefits From Increased Safety Belt Use, U.S. DOT, NHTSA, Office of Regulatory

Analysis Plans and Policy.

Page 10 GAO/RCED-96-24 Increasing Use of Safety Belts
Chapter 1 

Introduction

History of Safety Belts Safety belts were developed in the 1880s to keep people from bouncing off

horse-drawn buggies. However, automobile manufacturers did not offer

safety belts in vehicles until the 1950s. In 1961, a few states required that

belts be installed in the new cars sold in their states. In 1962,

manufacturers began to install safety belt anchorages at the factory,

making it easier for car dealers or owners to add safety belts later. In 1964,

U.S. manufacturers began making safety belts standard equipment in the

front seat of their cars.

Various analyses have been conducted to show what happens to belted

and unbelted occupants of vehicles involved in crashes. Figure 1.1 shows

how a steering wheel, instrument panel, and windshield absorb crash

forces affecting an unbelted dummy.

Figure 1.1: Unbelted Dummy in Crash

Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

In May 1992, we reported the results of various studies on the

effectiveness of safety belts, laws on the mandatory use of belts, and the

costs of not using belts.2

 These studies showed that using safety belts

generally reduced the rates of both fatalities and serious injuries by 50 to

75 percent in crashes involving motor vehicles. The studies also showed

that state laws on safety belt use reduced both fatalities and serious

injuries by 5 to 20 percent, even though the use of belts was relatively low

2

Highway Safety: Safety Belt Use Laws Save Lives and Reduce Costs to Society (GAO/RCED-92-106,

May 15, 1992).

Page 11 GAO/RCED-96-24 Increasing Use of Safety Belts
Chapter 1 

Introduction

during the periods in which these studies were performed. Most studies

that addressed hospital costs reported that the crash victims who had used

belts averaged 60 to 80 percent lower hospital costs than those who had

not used belts. The studies also found that the occupants not using belts

who were injured in crashes paid less than one-half of their hospital costs,

since most of the costs were paid through insurance premiums or

Medicare and Medicaid. The tax-supported programs paid between 8 and

28 percent of the hospital costs.

Federal and State Laws

Promote Safety Belts

The Congress and federal agencies have encouraged the installation and

use of safety belts since the mid-1960s, and the states began enacting laws

on safety belt use in the mid-1980s. Under the initial federal efforts, safety

belts were required to meet minimum standards. Since few occupants of

vehicles voluntarily used manual safety belts, DOT issued a rule in 1984

mandating that passive restraints—automatic safety belts and airbags—be

phased in beginning with 1987 model year cars. Under the rule, the

installation of passive restraints could be avoided if states representing

two-thirds of the U.S. population enacted satisfactory laws mandating

safety belt use. This provision focused attention on mandatory use laws

and prompted automobile manufacturers and others to provide funding

and support for such laws. The first state law mandating safety belt use

was enacted in New York in 1984; by 1986, a total of 22 states and the

District of Columbia had such laws in effect.

Since DOT’s data showed little increase in safety belt use between 1987 and

1990, the Congress acted in 1991 to again focus attention on increasing the

use of safety belts. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act

of 1991 (ISTEA) (P.L. 102-240) included financial incentives—grants and

penalties—to encourage the states to enact basic safety belt laws and

increase belt use. ISTEA provided for grants for up to 3 years to those states

that had laws mandating safety belt use and that achieved minimal levels

of belt use. The grants totaled $12 million per year for fiscal years 1992

through 1994. ISTEA also required those states that did not have basic safety

belt laws to transfer up to 3 percent of their federal-aid highway funds to

their state highway safety programs. Maine and New Hampshire are the

only states that do not have laws on safety belt use.

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

This report’s objectives were to determine (1) the nation’s progress in

achieving goals for the use of safety belts, (2) the strategies used most

successfully by some states to increase safety belt use, and (3) federal

Page 12 GAO/RCED-96-24 Increasing Use of Safety Belts
Chapter 1 

Introduction

strategies that could help increase this use. Our work was requested by the

Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on

Transportation and Related Agencies, House Committee on

Appropriations.

To conduct our work, we visited NHTSA’s headquarters in Washington, D.C.,

the agencies responsible for highway traffic safety programs in 10 states

(California, Colorado, Idaho, Maryland, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New

Jersey, New York, North Carolina, and South Carolina), and the seven

NHTSA regional offices with responsibility for the 10 states. We

judgmentally selected the 10 states to include a cross section of state

safety belt programs. In making our selections, we considered whether a

state’s survey on safety belt use had been approved by NHTSA, whether the

state had a law on safety belt use involving primary or secondary

enforcement, the fine the state assessed for noncompliance with the law,

the state’s reported rate of safety belt use (so that we selected states with

relatively high and low use), and the period in which the state’s last survey

on safety belt use had been conducted. At NHTSA and the state agencies, we

obtained and reviewed pertinent documents and discussed activities

concerning safety belts with officials. More specifically, at the various

locations, we

• obtained and reviewed pertinent documents, including NHTSA’s Regional

Action Plans and the states’ Highway Safety Plans, which described the

state’s strategies for increasing the use of safety belts and provided

information on past successes;

• reviewed materials developed for public information and education

campaigns and for community-based traffic safety programs;

• discussed with state officials what the federal government is currently

doing to increase safety belt use, what is and is not working well, and what

changes are desirable;

• reviewed appropriate laws and regulations and other relevant documents;

• reviewed the methodologies NHTSA used to calculate the rate of seat belt

use nationwide;

• analyzed the methodologies used in state surveys to determine whether

the states were consistent in how the surveys were planned and

conducted; and

• reviewed NHTSA’s guidelines on the state surveys of safety belt use to

determine the extent to which the guidance provides for consistent

surveys.

Page 13 GAO/RCED-96-24 Increasing Use of Safety Belts
Chapter 1 

Introduction

Also, as requested, we met with the Canadian officials responsible for

implementing safety belt programs to learn what strategies Canada had

used to achieve that country’s reported 90-percent rate of safety belt use.

We provided DOT with a draft of our report for review and comment. We

conducted our review between June 1994 and December 1995 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Page 14 GAO/RCED-96-24 Increasing Use of Safety Belts
Chapter 2 

Safety Belt Use Has Increased, but National

Goals Have Not Been Met

NHTSA has reported that safety belt use increased from 11 percent in 1982

to 67 percent in 1994. However, DOT’s recent goals for safety belt use

nationwide have not been met. For example, DOT had a goal of 70-percent

belt use by the end of 1992 and reported belt use in 1992 to be 62 percent.

DOT’s current goal is to reach a rate of 75-percent belt use nationwide by

1997. Using two different methodologies, NHTSA has estimated the rate of

safety belt use nationwide in 1994 to be either 67 or 58 percent.

NHTSA recognized that its methodology for estimating the 67-percent

nationwide rate of belt use was not precise because it relied on individual

state surveys that did not measure belt use consistently. For example, 22

states surveyed only passenger cars, while 20 states surveyed cars, light

trucks, and vans. Also, some states counted belt use by drivers only, while

others included use by other passengers as well. During October and

November 1994, NHTSA conducted a nationwide survey to gather more

detailed data on the use of restraints. This survey found a nationwide use

rate of 58 percent—63 percent in passenger cars and 50 percent in light

trucks. The rate in light trucks is important because these vehicles now

constitute about 40 percent of the new vehicles sold. Given NHTSA’s

estimates of a 58-percent or 67-percent nationwide rate of belt use in 1994,

significant progress must be made to meet DOT’s goal of a nationwide rate

of 75-percent belt use by 1997.

NHTSA’s Data

Indicate Increases in

Safety Belt Use

NHTSA has used various methodologies for estimating the rates of safety

belt use, and all show substantial increases since the early 1980s. NHTSA’s

data indicate that the increase has been gradual from one year to the next

with two exceptions. First, the largest increase occurred during 1985-86

when the first state safety belt laws went into effect. The second largest

increase occurred during 1991-93 when ISTEA provided financial incentives

for the states to enact safety belt laws and NHTSA initiated new programs

with state enforcement agencies. The estimates indicate relatively small

increases in belt use before 1985, from 1987 through 1990, and between

1993 and 1994. Figure 2.1 shows the changes in safety belt use nationwide

since the early 1980s relative to the number of state laws on safety belt

use.

Page 15 GAO/RCED-96-24 Increasing Use of Safety Belts
Chapter 2 

Safety Belt Use Has Increased, but National

Goals Have Not Been Met

Figure 2.1: Safety Belt Laws and Use

Rates

National Use Rate

State Laws

1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Percentage of National 

Belt Use

Number of State 

Laws in Effect

Source: NHTSA. Information for 1983-90 came from an annual NHTSA survey of 19 cities;

information for 1991-94 came from the state surveys.

Measures of safety belt use over time have been available from a variety of

sources, such as data about the occupants of vehicles involved in crashes,

telephone surveys, and surveys of belt use that NHTSA performed until 1991

in 19 cities. For reasons discussed below, the various sources show very

different rates of belt use. However, as figure 2.2 shows, all of the data

Page 16 GAO/RCED-96-24 Increasing Use of Safety Belts
Chapter 2 

Safety Belt Use Has Increased, but National

Goals Have Not Been Met

sources show a substantial increase in belt use since the early 1980s. In

addition, the indicators show larger increases during periods of increased

federal and state emphasis on safety belt programs.

Page 17 GAO/RCED-96-24 Increasing Use of Safety Belts
Chapter 2 

Safety Belt Use Has Increased, but National

Goals Have Not Been Met

Figure 2.2: Nationwide Rates of Safety Belt Use

1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

0

20

40

60

80

100

Self-Report Telephone Surveys

NHTSA's 19-City Survey

Occupant Fatalities

Aggregate of State Surveys

Occupant Injuries

Drivers in Property-DamageOnly Crashes

Percentage of Nationwide Belt Use

Source: NHTSA.

Page 18 GAO/RCED-96-24 Increasing Use of Safety Belts
Chapter 2 

Safety Belt Use Has Increased, but National

Goals Have Not Been Met

These other sources show different but not necessarily more reliable use

rates than those generally quoted by NHTSA and shown in figure 2.1. From

1982 to 1991, NHTSA used a survey that sampled belt use in 19 cities as an

indicator of the nationwide rate of belt use. These surveys were useful for

tracking changes in use rates in the particular cities included in the study,

but the results from the sample cities could not be statistically

extrapolated to metropolitan areas not in the sample or to any

nonmetropolitan area. A telephone survey has been conducted almost

every year since 1983, and the results show higher belt use than NHTSA has

reported. This higher result is understandable because other studies have

shown that respondents to telephone surveys tend to report higher use

than is actually observed.

Data about the occupants of vehicles involved in crashes indicate belt use

rates both higher and lower than NHTSA’s two reported estimates, but these

different results can be explained logically. NHTSA’s Fatal Accident

Reporting System (FARS) contains data only from crashes in which

someone died. Belt use by the victims in these crashes tends to be low

because people who use belts tend to be injured or uninjured rather than

killed, so they are more likely to be reported, not in FARS, but in NHTSA’s

General Estimates System (GES) as involved in a crash resulting in injury

or property damage only. In addition, the belt use reported in the GES data

is higher because the data generally come from statements made by the

vehicles’ occupants, who tend to tell police officers that they were

complying with belt use laws. This tendency is particularly evident in

crashes involving property damage only and no apparent injury.

While the rates of safety belt use from the federal data on crashes are of

limited value in estimating belt use nationwide, they can be useful for

NHTSA and the states in evaluating the reasonableness of the use rates

shown in the state surveys. The results of the state surveys can be

expected to be higher than the FARS results and lower than the GES results

for each state for the reasons explained above. NHTSA has developed a

model that uses FARS data to predict actual belt use, and these results have

been compared with the results from state surveys. While the model does

not consider all of the relevant differences among the states, NHTSA

officials told us that these comparisons of estimates of safety belt use from

the state survey data and FARS generally support the reasonableness of the

results of the state surveys.

Figure 2.2 also demonstrates the importance of changes in the surveys’

methodology and the effects such changes can have on the results of an

Page 19 GAO/RCED-96-24 Increasing Use of Safety Belts
Chapter 2 

Safety Belt Use Has Increased, but National

Goals Have Not Been Met

analysis. Figure 2.1 shows NHTSA’s analysis of nationwide rates of belt use

between 1983 and 1994. According to NHTSA, the sources of the information

were the 19-city survey from 1983 through 1990 and the state surveys from

1991 through 1994. Figure 2.2 shows that there were 2 years—1990 and

1991—in which the rates from both the 19-city survey and the state

surveys were computed. The state surveys, using a different methodology,

showed results 4 percentage points higher in 1990 and 8 percentage points

higher in 1991 than the 19-city survey showed. As a result, a substantial

portion of the 10-percentage point increase shown in figure 2.1 between

1990 and 1991 was caused by the change in the surveys’ methodology.

Although NHTSA may have used the best available data for those years, the

change in methodology is an important factor to consider when analyzing

the trend.

67-Percent Belt Use

Rate for 1994 Is Not

Reliable

NHTSA’s estimate of a 67-percent nationwide rate of safety belt use for 1994

is not reliable because the rate is based on state surveys that used

different methodologies that do not consistently measure belt use. For

example, 22 states surveyed only passenger cars, while 20 states surveyed

cars, light trucks, and vans; the other states surveyed two of the three

vehicle categories. Five states measured belt use by drivers only, and the

others measured use by drivers and occupants of the vehicles’ right front

seat; no state surveyed belt use by the occupants of the rear seats. The

methodologies used for the state surveys also varied in selecting

observation locations and in weighting the results. Some states exempted

sparsely populated areas from their sampling plans, while others

considered all geographic areas eligible for sampling. Also, some states

conducted annual surveys, while others did not.

NHTSA estimated the 67-percent nationwide rate of safety belt use for 1994

by using 34 state surveys conducted in 1994, 16 surveys conducted before

1994, and information on belt use from Wyoming’s crash data. NHTSA

calculated the nationwide use rate by taking each state’s most recent rate

and weighting the rate by each state’s population as a proportion of the

total U.S. population. In our opinion, this methodology does not provide a

reliable estimate of the nationwide rate of safety belt use because it relies

on state surveys that use very different methodologies. NHTSA has

acknowledged that the state surveys on safety belt use differ in design.

However, NHTSA pointed out that 28 states—representing over 70 percent

of the U.S. population—conducted probability-based observational

Page 20 GAO/RCED-96-24 Increasing Use of Safety Belts
Chapter 2 

Safety Belt Use Has Increased, but National

Goals Have Not Been Met

surveys.1 Nevertheless, the agency also said that the remaining states

conducted surveys in which their observation sites, while usually adequate

in number, were not randomly selected. As a result, no confidence

intervals2

 can be calculated from these survey results.

In our May 1992 report, we found that statewide data on safety belt use

was questionable.3 NHTSA analysts had told us that the statewide rates of

safety belt use provided by the states were generally not based on

probability sampling techniques that would provide statistically valid

estimates. The states had used a variety of methods that differed in

reliability. The states’ data on the rate of belt use were particularly

important at that time because ISTEA provided for grants to the states on

the basis of these rates. Funds were allocated to the states during fiscal

years 1992-94 in part on the basis of the rates of safety belt use as

measured by the state surveys.

To improve the quality of the data in the state surveys, in June 1992 NHTSA

finalized guidelines for state observational surveys of belt use. These

guidelines allowed the states substantial latitude in designing and carrying

out the surveys. Although the guidelines were very flexible and NHTSA

helped the states conform with the guidelines, only 28 states received

NHTSA’s approval of their survey methodology. NHTSA officials said that

some additional states might be performing a survey that either conforms

to the guidelines or nearly conforms, but these states did not need NHTSA’s

approval of their survey plan. Since the grants are no longer available,

there is no financial incentive for the states to have their survey plan

conform with NHTSA’s guidelines.

A NHTSA contractor commented on the use of data from the state surveys

for developing a nationwide belt use estimate as follows:4

“Available state estimates of safety belt use cannot be used to produce a national estimate.

Review of the designs of all states that have conducted state-level surveys of occupant

restraint systems has confirmed that results across states are not comparable and cannot

be used to produce a national estimate.”

1

A probability-based survey is one in which the units (i.e., vehicles) sampled are chosen with a known

likelihood or probability.

2

A confidence interval is a range around the estimate that is calculated to indicate how closely the

result could be reproduced in a complete count of the universe using the same measurement methods.

3

GAO/RCED-92-106.

4

National Safety Belt Survey Sample Design: Final Report (Washington Consulting Group, Washington,

D.C.: Apr. 15, 1994).

Page 21 GAO/RCED-96-24 Increasing Use of Safety Belts
Chapter 2 

Safety Belt Use Has Increased, but National

Goals Have Not Been Met

We agree with the contractor’s comments. However, NHTSA officials said

that the lack of consistency among the state surveys does not preclude

using the surveys to develop a reasonable annual estimate of belt use

nationwide. They also said that it was important for states to continue to

perform surveys so that each state can identify trends and specific local

problems with belt use.

NHTSA’s Most Recent

Survey Reveals

58-Percent Rate of

Belt Use

Recognizing that the data from the state surveys were limited in scope,

NHTSA in 1994 conducted a special national analysis—the National

Occupant Protection Use Survey (NOPUS). Data were collected by

observing traffic at about 4,000 randomly selected sites in 25 states during

October, November, and December 1994. NOPUS was used to estimate the

nationwide rate of belt use and to obtain detailed data on (1) belt use by

vehicle type and the occupant’s age and gender and (2) the misuse of belts.

The initial results from NOPUS were released by NHTSA in early 1995 and

showed an overall nationwide rate of safety belt use of 58 percent for 1994.

These results indicate, among other things, that the drivers tend to use

safety belts more frequently than the passengers in the right front seat and

that belt use is higher in the western United States than in the rest of the

country. The NOPUS’ breakout by vehicle type showed an overall rate of

63-percent belt use for the occupants of passenger cars and a 50-percent

rate of use for the occupants of light trucks.5

 This breakout for light trucks

is particularly important because these vehicles make up about 40 percent

of the new vehicles sold. NHTSA recently estimated that annually 3,600

occupants of light trucks die and 54,000 are injured because they do not

use safety belts.6

 This disparity in belt use rates between the occupants of

passenger cars and light trucks indicates that special emphasis and

targeted programs may be needed to increase belt use in light trucks. Part

of the disparity could relate to the fact, discussed in chapter 4, that several

states’ laws on belt use do not cover the occupants of light trucks.

NHTSA officials believe that NOPUS’ findings generally support the estimates

of the nationwide rate of belt use calculated from the state surveys but

agree that comparing the rates in the NOPUS and the state surveys is

difficult. NHTSA plans to conduct another NOPUS survey if funds become

5

In our May 1992 report on safety belts, we mentioned this disparity in safety belt use between the

occupants of passenger cars and light trucks. The recent NOPUS data on the disparity support the

limited data that were available at the time of our report.

6

Estimating the Benefits From Increased Safety Belt Use, NHTSA Office of Regulatory Analysis, Plans

and Policy, June 1994.

Page 22 GAO/RCED-96-24 Increasing Use of Safety Belts
Chapter 2 

Safety Belt Use Has Increased, but National

Goals Have Not Been Met

available, but the agency plans to continue using the state surveys to

annually estimate the nationwide rate of belt use. The 67-percent weighted

average from the state surveys and the 58-percent rate from NOPUS both fall

within the range of estimates of belt use based on other data. Both

estimates reveal that substantial progress must be made if DOT’s goal of

75-percent belt use by 1997 is to be achieved.

Conclusions Safety belt use increased from 11 percent in 1982 to a reported 67 percent

in 1994. Much of the increase resulted from the adoption of laws

mandating safety belt use by 48 states and the District of Columbia.

Increases in belt use can also be noted during the years in which federal

funds were provided to the states for improving their safety belt programs.

Belt use in light trucks and vans has remained relatively low. These

vehicles are not covered by federal law or by the laws of several states.

NHTSA has recognized that individual state surveys do not measure belt use

consistently. NHTSA could improve the guidelines for the state surveys, but

the effect of such improvements could be minimal since the state laws

vary significantly and NHTSA does not offer financial incentives to

encourage the states to improve their surveys. Given NHTSA’s two reported

nationwide rates of belt use—67 or 58 percent—significant progress must

be made if the nation is to achieve DOT’s goal of a rate of 75-percent use of

safety belts by 1997.

Page 23 GAO/RCED-96-24 Increasing Use of Safety Belts
Chapter 3 

Primary Enforcement Laws and Aggressive

Enforcement Are Key to Increased Belt Use

The states that are most successful in increasing safety belt use have

comprehensive programs that include primary enforcement laws, visible

and aggressive enforcement, and vigorous public information and

education programs. Primary enforcement laws allow law enforcement

officials to stop and ticket a vehicle’s occupants solely for not using their

safety belts. Ten states currently have safety belt use laws allowing

primary enforcement, while 39 states including the District of Columbia

have laws allowing for only secondary enforcement. NHTSA estimated that

the rates of belt use in the states with primary enforcement laws were

15 percentage points higher in 1994 than the rates in the states with

secondary enforcement laws.

Successful State

Safety Belt Programs

Contain Several

Components

The states’ laws on safety belt use differ widely in enforcement, coverage,

and fines, but the most successful programs share several common key

components. Appendix I shows the 1994 rates of safety belt use that the

states reported to NHTSA, as well as some information about the belt laws

in each state. As reported by the states, the rates of belt use in 1994 ranged

from a low of 32 percent to a high of 84 percent; four states reported rates

of over 80-percent belt use, while five reported rates of less than

50-percent use.

To understand the key components of a successful safety belt program

and how they work together to increase belt use, we visited 10 states and

their respective NHTSA regional office. As shown in table 3.1, the 10 states

we visited included 3 states with primary enforcement laws, 6 states with

secondary enforcement laws, and 1 state with no law.

Page 24 GAO/RCED-96-24 Increasing Use of Safety Belts
Chapter 3 

Primary Enforcement Laws and Aggressive

Enforcement Are Key to Increased Belt Use

Table 3.1: State Laws and Reported

Belt Use Rates for 10 States

State

Effective

datea Seats

Primary vehicles

covered Fine

Use

rate

States with primary enforcement laws (3)

California

1/1/86

All Passenger cars, vans,

and small trucks $20 83%

North Carolina

10/1/85

Front Passenger vehicles

for under 11

passengers $25 81%

New York

12/1/84

Front Motor vehicles except

for special use $50 72%

States with secondary enforcement laws (6)

Maryland

7/1/86

Front Passenger/

multipurpose vehicle,

bus, truck, and tractor $25 69%

New Jersey

3/1/85

Front Passenger

automobiles $20 64%

South Carolina

7/1/89

Front Passenger cars,

trucks, vans, and

recreational vehicles $10 64%

Idaho

7/1/86

Front Motor vehicle

weighing under 8,000

pounds $5 61%

Colorado

7/1/87

Front Passenger cars, vans,

recreational vehicles,

and small trucks $15 54%

Mississippi

3/20/90

Front Motor vehicles for

under 11 passengers $25 43%

State with no safety belt law (1)

New Hampshire N/Ab N/A N/A N/A 54%

aDate first law mandating safety belt use became effective.

bN/A = not applicable.

Source: NHTSA and state highway safety programs.

Officials in each NHTSA regional office and state we visited stressed that

primary enforcement laws were the best way to increase safety belt use

but that the other components were needed to maintain that rate of

increase. They also stated that in the absence of a primary enforcement

law, the most effective way to increase safety belt use was a secondary

enforcement law combined with active community involvement in law

enforcement and public education and information activities aimed at

increasing the use of safety belts. Figure 3.1 shows that the 3 states with

Page 25 GAO/RCED-96-24 Increasing Use of Safety Belts
Chapter 3 

Primary Enforcement Laws and Aggressive

Enforcement Are Key to Increased Belt Use

primary enforcement laws we visited significantly increased belt use after

adopting such a law. Of the 10 states we visited, the average belt use of the

3 states with primary enforcement was about 20 percentage points higher

than the average belt use of the 6 states with secondary enforcement.

Figure 3.1: Trends in Safety Belt Use

for Three States With Primary

Enforcement Laws

California New York North Carolina

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percentage of Belt Use

No Law

Secondary Enforcement Law

Primary Enforcement Law

Figure 3.2 shows that the six states with secondary enforcement laws we

visited experienced increases in safety belt use after adopting such a law.

However, the two figures together show that the overall rates of belt use

for the states with secondary enforcement are much lower than the rates

of the states with primary enforcement.

Page 26 GAO/RCED-96-24 Increasing Use of Safety Belts
Chapter 3 

Primary Enforcement Laws and Aggressive

Enforcement Are Key to Increased Belt Use

Figure 3.2: Trends in Safety Belt Use

for Six States With Secondary

Enforcement Laws

No Law

Secondary Enforcement Law

Percentage of Belt Use

Colorado

Idaho

Maryland

Mississippi

New Jersey

South Carolina

0

20

40

60

80

100

Primary Enforcement

Laws Are Key to

Increasing Safety Belt

Use

States with primary enforcement laws have been the most successful in

increasing safety belt use. This success is the result of law enforcement

officers stopping and assessing fines to a vehicle’s occupants solely for not

using their safety belts. Officials of state safety belt programs work with

law enforcement agencies to encourage enforcement and also to help

educate and inform the public about the law and the consequences of

noncompliance. According to state officials, one of the most successful

ways to reach the public is by involving community groups in programs

aimed at increasing safety belt use.

The ability of primary enforcement laws to increase safety belt use is best

illustrated by California’s upgrade of its law mandating safety belt use

from a secondary enforcement law to a primary enforcement law. In

November 1992, California reported a rate of safety belt use of 70 percent.

At that time, California’s secondary enforcement law had been in place for

Page 27 GAO/RCED-96-24 Increasing Use of Safety Belts
Chapter 3 

Primary Enforcement Laws and Aggressive

Enforcement Are Key to Increased Belt Use

about 7 years. On January 1, 1993, California implemented a primary

enforcement law, resulting in an increase in safety belt use of

13 percentage points for a statewide rate of 83 percent in late 1993,

according to the results of a state survey. California officials actively

publicized this change in the law. A survey of some California drivers

conducted during March through September 1993 found that 90 percent of

those surveyed knew that they could be stopped for violating a belt law

alone and 75 percent felt that the law was being strictly enforced.

California increased only slightly the number of citations issued during

this period. Therefore, NHTSA officials believe that the change to a primary

enforcement law is the primary reason for the significant increase in belt

use.

Primary enforcement laws increase safety belt use, but sustained and

increased safety belt use can be better achieved when these laws are

supported with enforcement and public education and information

activities. North Carolina provides an example of how these activities,

when associated with a primary enforcement law, can dramatically

increase safety belt use. Before implementing its primary enforcement law

in October 1985, North Carolina had a rate of safety belt use of 24 percent.

During a 15-month period when only warnings were issued to violators,

the reported rates of safety belt use ranged from 41 to 49 percent. On

January 1, 1987, citations began to be issued for not using a belt, and the

reported rate of belt use quickly increased to 78 percent. However, after a

few years, state surveys showed that the rate of belt use had dropped back

to 60 percent.

In September 1993, North Carolina embarked on a multiyear

campaign—“Click It or Ticket”—to further increase safety belt use and

reduce related injuries and fatalities. This intensive enforcement and

publicity campaign is credited with increasing North Carolina’s reported

rate of safety belt use by 15 percentage points in 3 months—65 to 80

percent—and with achieving North Carolina’s current rate of 81 percent.

The campaign featured increased and highly visible enforcement through

the use of safety belt checkpoints. These activities were publicized locally,

and the message provided to the public was that activities to enforce the

safety belt law were the major focus of local law enforcement agencies

during the first 4 weeks of the program. This highly visible program was

also directly endorsed by North Carolina’s governor, who cited the high

costs society pays for individuals who do not use their safety belts. State

officials report that in its first 6 months, the “Click It or Ticket” campaign

Page 28 GAO/RCED-96-24 Increasing Use of Safety Belts
Chapter 3 

Primary Enforcement Laws and Aggressive

Enforcement Are Key to Increased Belt Use

saved 45 lives, prevented 320 disabling injuries, and saved more than

$51 million in health care and other costs.

New York has also used enforcement and public education and

information activities to sustain and increase the rate of safety belt use

that the state achieved after it passed the nation’s first law mandating

safety belt use on December 1, 1984. Before the passage of this law, New

York’s rate of safety belt use was estimated to be 16 percent. Within 6

months, the state’s reported rate of belt use increased to 57 percent. New

York now reports a belt use rate of 72 percent. This gain was primarily due

to the emphasis placed on enforcing the law through police training and an

increase in the number of citations issued. New York has also used public

information campaigns and special workshops on restraints for children.

NHTSA officials told us that the state’s ability to continue to positively affect

the rate of safety belt use results from their emphasis on establishing and

incorporating community-based networks into programs to improve traffic

safety.

Secondary

Enforcement Laws

Can Increase Safety

Belt Use

States with secondary enforcement laws are also successful in increasing

safety belt use, but their success is limited by the difficulty in effectively

enforcing the law. Today, 38 states and the District of Columbia have

secondary enforcement laws, which allow a vehicle’s occupants to be

ticketed for not using safety belts after they have been stopped for another

violation. The success of secondary enforcement laws depends on how

well the states work with law enforcement agencies to encourage

enforcement and reach out to community members to educate and inform

them about the laws and the importance of using safety belts. The states’

efforts to strengthen laws on restraints for children also contribute to

increasing adults’ use of safety belts.

For the six states with secondary enforcement laws that we visited, the

laws contributed greatly to increasing the rates of safety belt use. Also

important were aggressive enforcement and public education and

information activities. For example, Idaho was able to increase its

reported rate of belt use by 24 percentage points—from 35 percent in

June 1990 to 59 percent in September 1993—through an increased

emphasis on education and enforcement at the local level. Idaho used

some of its highway safety funds to provide grants to the local law

enforcement agencies that administered these programs. These agencies

provided the community with information and education on safety belts

and child restraints, and trained law enforcement officers on the use of

Page 29 GAO/RCED-96-24 Increasing Use of Safety Belts
Chapter 3 

Primary Enforcement Laws and Aggressive

Enforcement Are Key to Increased Belt Use

restraints and the need for increased enforcement. To receive these grants,

the enforcement agencies were required to have a policy of writing one

safety belt citation for every five citations for hazardous violations. This

approach greatly increased the number of citations issued for safety belt

violations and resulted in a statewide rate of belt use of 61 percent in 1994.

New Jersey was also able to increase its rate of safety belt use

substantially through increased enforcement activities. From 1990 to 1991,

New Jersey doubled the number of safety belt citations issued, resulting in

a reported increase of 18 percentage points—from 50 percent to

68 percent—in its rate of safety belt use. New Jersey also was very active

in public information and education, including a “101 Days of Summer”

publicity campaign that emphasized why it was important to use safety

belts and activities connected with “Buckle Up America Week.” New

Jersey’s safety officials are attempting to upgrade the state’s safety belt

law to a primary enforcement law because they believe this change could

immediately increase the state’s rate of safety belt use by up to

12 percentage points. New Jersey reported a current rate of safety belt use

of 64 percent.

Other states with secondary enforcement laws we visited have not

experienced the level of increase in use rates that Idaho and New Jersey

have. Colorado, for example, reported an increase in its use rate to

51 percent from 18 percent when it implemented its law on July 1, 1987,

but has not been able to make substantial progress since that time. As of

January 1995, Colorado reported a use rate of 54 percent. However, the

state believes its rate will likely increase as its many activities are

implemented. For example, the state is training law enforcement officers

to enforce the safety belt law and is conducting a “Drive Smart Colorado”

campaign that assists community leaders in developing strategies and

programs to ensure the safety of the traveling public. Also, Colorado

recently amended its law on restraints for children to increase the age of

the children covered by the law from 4 to 16.

New Hampshire, which has no law on mandatory belt use, shows how

having a law on restraints for children and aggressive public information

and education about that law can contribute to increased adult use of

safety belts. In 1984, New Hampshire found that only 16 percent of drivers

were using safety belts. Since then, the largest reported annual increase in

New Hampshire’s rate of safety belt use by adults—from 37 percent in

1988 to 50 percent in 1989—coincided with an increase in the age of the

children covered by the law on restraints for children from up to age 4 to

Page 30 GAO/RCED-96-24 Increasing Use of Safety Belts
Chapter 3 

Primary Enforcement Laws and Aggressive

Enforcement Are Key to Increased Belt Use

up to age 12.1 This change in the law provided New Hampshire with the

opportunity to educate and inform the public about the child restraint law

and the consequences of not using safety belts and then being involved in

a traffic accident. In September 1994, New Hampshire reported a rate of

safety belt use by adults of 54 percent. State officials said that this latest

increase can be attributed to another change in the child restraint law

(effective Jan. 1, 1994), which requires children up to age 4 to be

restrained in a proper restraint system—a car seat.

Conclusions The states that are most successful in increasing their rates of safety belt

use have comprehensive programs that include mandatory primary

enforcement laws that are visibly and aggressively enforced. These states

also actively educate and inform the public about the laws, their benefits,

and the consequences of noncompliance. Those states that do not have

mandatory safety belt laws involving primary enforcement can also

achieve increased safety belt use through increased enforcement of their

secondary enforcement laws and through effective efforts to educate and

inform the public. However, given the benefits in increased use rates that

primary enforcement laws provide, the effectiveness of the state programs

that are currently based on secondary enforcement laws could be

dramatically increased through the implementation of primary

enforcement laws, assuming the other program elements are continued.

1

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has been critical of New Hampshire’s methodology for

measuring safety belt use. The Institute believes that the state’s reported use rate is higher than the

actual rate of belt use because of an alleged bias in the state’s sampling criteria for the site survey.

Page 31 GAO/RCED-96-24 Increasing Use of Safety Belts
Chapter 4 

Federal Strategies for Increasing Safety Belt

Use

Stronger state laws on safety belt use could increase the rates of belt use,

annually preventing thousands of deaths and serious injuries and saving

up to $20 billion. Various studies have shown that the public pays for most

of the costs resulting from not using safety belts through higher taxes and

insurance premiums. While various federal actions could be taken to

increase safety belt use, an effective strategy would encourage the states

to have comprehensive programs, including primary enforcement laws

with aggressive enforcement, coverage of all occupants in vehicles with

belts installed, fines that discourage noncompliance, and public education.

The current federal policy, contained in ISTEA, encourages the states to

have a law mandating safety belt use that covers occupants of passenger

cars’ front seats. ISTEA does not specify a primary or secondary

enforcement law and does not require occupants of passenger cars’ rear

seats or any occupants of light trucks and vans to use safety belts.

Nonuse of Safety

Belts Generates Large

Costs to Society

In June 1994, NHTSA reported1 that the nonuse of safety belts by occupants

of passenger cars results in about 6,200 deaths and 150,000 moderate to

critical injuries each year. Additionally, 3,600 occupants of light trucks and

multipurpose vehicles die and 54,000 are injured unnecessarily because

they do not use safety belts. NHTSA estimated that these deaths and injuries

cost society $20 billion annually in medical costs, lost productivity, and

other injury-related expenses. Most of these costs are borne by society in

the form of tax-supported programs and insurance premiums.

In response to a mandate in ISTEA,

2 NHTSA analyzed data from seven states

to determine the benefits of medical care for crash victims and who pays

for that care. This Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES) project

linked statewide data from police reports on motor vehicle crashes with

computerized data from emergency medical services, hospital emergency

departments, hospital discharges, and other activities so that the costs of

the medical treatment of people injured in traffic crashes could be

tracked. CODES obtained data on about 880,000 vehicle drivers for various

periods between 1990 and 1992 in the seven states. The final report is

expected to be provided to the Congress in February 1996.

1

Estimating the Benefits From Increased Safety Belt Use, DOT, NHTSA, Office of Regulatory Analysis

Plans and Policy (June 1994).

2

NHTSA has prepared a draft report entitled Report to Congress on the Benefits of Safety Belts and

Motorcycle Helmets Based on Data from CODES—The Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System. The

draft includes an analysis of data from seven states.

Page 32 GAO/RCED-96-24 Increasing Use of Safety Belts
Chapter 4 

Federal Strategies for Increasing Safety Belt

Use

The preliminary data from CODES indicates there is a direct relationship

between safety belt use and the medical costs resulting from traffic

crashes. The average charges for all drivers (including those not

hospitalized) in the CODES study who were involved in crashes was $562 for

those not using safety belts and $110 for those using belts. Thus, those

drivers using safety belts averaged 80 percent lower charges. For crash

victims who were actually admitted to hospitals, the average charges were

$13,937 for those not using safety belts and $9,004 for those using belts,

which indicates a 35-percent reduction in hospital charges when safety

belts were used.

The data from CODES are consistent with the data from other studies. Our

May 1992 report on the effectiveness of safety belts presented the results

from eight studies containing data on the effectiveness of safety belts in

reducing hospital charges. All the studies showed that hospital costs were

lower for the vehicle occupants using safety belts than for the occupants

not using belts. The victims who used belts had average hospital costs that

were from 27 to 87 percent lower than those of the victims who did not

use belts; most of the studies showed costs between 60 and 80 percent

lower. Stated another way, most of the studies showed the hospital costs

for the crash victims who did not use belts to be 2-1/2 to 5 times the cost

for the victims who used belts. The studies also provided data showing

that safety belts reduce other costs related to injuries in traffic crashes,

such as ambulance costs or insurance claims costs for personal injury.

While the studies discussed in that report indicated a higher rate of

temporary and permanent disability for the victims who did not use belts,

the data on such long-term effects were generally not available.

Unfortunately, none of the studies captured information on the level of

income replacement resulting from providing disability or welfare benefits

to victims who did or did not use belts.

CODES and other studies have shown that society pays a large part of the

costs of medical treatment for those injured in traffic crashes. Preliminary

data from CODES show that the public paid 16 percent of these costs

through such programs as Medicare and Medicaid. About 69 percent was

paid by private insurance, which spread the cost to all who pay insurance

premiums. At the time the victims were discharged from the hospital, only

15 percent of the charges were classified as paid by others, generally “self

payers.” NHTSA pointed out in its draft report that these self payers often

are unable to pay their bills, and the cost of providing this care is

ultimately passed on through higher charges for those who do pay.

Page 33 GAO/RCED-96-24 Increasing Use of Safety Belts
Chapter 4 

Federal Strategies for Increasing Safety Belt

Use

CODES data show that the general public may pay a larger portion of the

costs than some of the earlier data showed. NHTSA published a report in

January 1992 that used data from five states to estimate the costs of

hospital care for people injured in motor vehicle crashes in 1990 and the

sources of payment of those costs.3

 Those data show that 29 percent was

paid by government sources, 52 percent by insurance, and 19 percent by

others. Five studies of hospital costs that we reviewed for our May 1992

report4

 also collected data on medical payments for crash victims. Among

the victims who did not use belts, from 8 to 28 percent were covered by

Medicare or Medicaid, from 41 to 55 percent were covered by insurance,

and the remaining 22 to 49 percent were considered self payers. Some

costs not covered by public programs or insurance ultimately will not be

paid by the injured person or the person’s family, so a portion of the costs

to self payers will be paid by other sources of funding for the hospitals.

Federal Efforts Have

Increased Belt Use,

but State Laws Are

Not Comprehensive

The federal government has recognized the benefits of safety belts and has

been requiring their installation and encouraging their use since the

mid-1960s. Federal efforts have been effective in encouraging the states to

enact basic laws on mandatory safety belt use. NHTSA has not been

successful, however, in encouraging the majority of states to enact a

primary enforcement law that covers occupants in all types of motor

vehicles that have belts installed.

NHTSA has encouraged the states to enact a law mandating safety belt use

and has distributed material for the states and others to use in urging the

public to use safety belts. NHTSA has also initiated national campaigns for

public information and awareness and has assisted in state and local

campaigns to increase safety belt use. In addition, the states receive

federal funding to help them implement highway safety programs. About

$170 million was requested for fiscal year 1996 for assistance to the states

under the federal highway safety program. DOT encourages the states to

use the funds in support of program areas that are national priorities. The

Secretary of Transportation has established a goal of a nationwide rate of

75-percent belt use by 1997, in place of an earlier goal of 70-percent use by

1992. NHTSA has worked with the states and local agencies to achieve these

goals.

3

Joan S. Harris, Source of Payment for the Medical Cost of Motor Vehicle Injuries in the United States,

1990, DOT HS 807 800, U.S. DOT, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (Jan. 1992).

4

GAO/RCED-92-106.

Page 34 GAO/RCED-96-24 Increasing Use of Safety Belts
Chapter 4 

Federal Strategies for Increasing Safety Belt

Use

NHTSA’s primary focus in increasing safety belt use has been through

encouraging states to enact stronger laws and through related efforts in

enforcement and public education. Officials in the states we visited told us

that NHTSA’s assistance has helped them develop safety belt programs at

the state and local levels. They also said that the federal funds have been

an important element in state and local activities for education and

enforcement. To varying degrees, the states have used NHTSA’s public

information materials and have joined in the federal promotional

campaigns.

NHTSA has encouraged the states to strengthen their safety belt laws.

However, most state laws provide for secondary enforcement and minimal

fines for violations, cover only occupants of the vehicles’ front seat, and

often exempt the occupants of light trucks. Our May 1992 report

concluded that stronger and more comprehensive laws were needed and

that society could save billions of dollars annually through increased

safety belt use. As discussed in chapter 3 of this report, the most effective

state laws have strong enforcement provisions and cover all occupants of

passenger cars, light trucks, and vans. Since our 1992 report, nine states

have enacted new laws on belt use, but these laws are similar to the earlier

laws—generally providing for secondary enforcement and relatively low

fines. Overall, little progress has been made recently in getting the states

to adopt stronger and more comprehensive safety belt laws.

As table 4.1 shows, most state laws cover the occupants of the front seat

only, and some exempt the occupants of light trucks and/or vans. Ten

states provide for primary enforcement, and 39 states (including the

District of Columbia) provide for secondary enforcement. Only 11 state

laws cover the occupants of rear seats, and 7 state laws exempt the

occupants of light trucks and vans. Only 4 states assess fines for violations

of belt use laws that exceed $25, and 13 states assess fines of $10 or less,

including 2 states that do not assess any fine.

Page 35 GAO/RCED-96-24 Increasing Use of Safety Belts
Chapter 4 

Federal Strategies for Increasing Safety Belt

Use

Table 4.1: Examples of Differences in

States’ Safety Belt Laws Requirements Number of states

Coverage

Only occupants of front seat 38

All occupants 11

Light trucks and/or vans exempted 7

Enforcement

Primary 10

Secondary 39

Fines

Over $25 4

$11 to $25 32

$10 or less 13

Source: NHTSA’s data (see app.I).

Although 49 states (including the District of Columbia) now have laws on

safety belt use, compared with 42 in 1991, the laws could be stronger and

more comprehensive. Ten states have primary enforcement laws—the

same number as in 1991. While California and Louisiana have enacted a

primary enforcement law since 1991, Mississippi and Wisconsin have

changed from primary to secondary enforcement.5

 The states’ fines for

violating belt use laws have changed little since 1991, and most are so low

that they have little influence on motivating nonusers of belts to buckle up.

NHTSA has recognized the value of stronger state laws and has worked with

the states on these issues but has not developed for use by the states a

model law on mandatory safety belt use that requires primary

enforcement, coverage of all occupants in vehicles that have belts

installed, and fines sufficient to encourage belt use. Instead, NHTSA has

encouraged the states to establish their own safety belt goals, pass

stronger laws, and design and improve safety belt programs, and has

supported education and media campaigns to increase awareness about

safety belts. As part of NHTSA’s fiscal year 1996 appropriations process, the

report of the House Committee on Appropriations states that

“the Committee believes that more aggressive action needs to be taken to achieve a

75 percent seat belt usage rate by 1997. Specifically, the Committee directs NHTSA to

develop and distribute it to all states a model seat belt use law as part of its 1996 program.”

5

Louisiana’s primary enforcement law became effective in September 1995, and fines for

noncompliance begin in November 1995. Although Mississippi has changed from primary to secondary

enforcement, the state now provides for a fine for violations of its belt law, which it did not do before.

Page 36 GAO/RCED-96-24 Increasing Use of Safety Belts
Chapter 4 

Federal Strategies for Increasing Safety Belt

Use

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) in July 1995 urged state

governments to adopt stricter methods of enforcing safety belt laws and to

consider tougher penalties for drivers and passengers who do not use

them. Citing the effectiveness of stronger laws, NTSB has recommended

that the states:

“Enact legislation that provides for primary enforcement of mandatory safety belt use laws.

Consider provisions such as adequate fine levels and the imposition of driver license

penalty points.”

NTSB sent its recommendations to all the states with a secondary

enforcement law and those without safety belt laws, asking the states to

report any actions taken on its recommendations.

Federal Legislation

Could Encourage

Stronger State Safety

Belt Laws

Our May 1992 report discussed the relevant provisions of ISTEA and stated

that “the act’s provisions may do little to encourage states to strengthen

their existing laws.” The grants established by ISTEA to encourage belt use

were available for a 3-year period—1992-94—and did not require strong

state laws as a condition of receiving the grants. The penalty provision

transfers the fiscal year 1995 funds of the states that have no safety belt

law as of October 1, 1993. This provision transfers up to 3 percent of a

state’s federal-aid highway funds to the state’s highway safety programs.

Under current law, in 1996 only Maine and New Hampshire will be subject

to the safety belt penalty, which is estimated at about $1.6 million for each

state.

ISTEA requires the states to have laws on mandatory safety belt use to avoid

the penalty, but it does not require primary enforcement or state fines for

nonuse of belts. Also, the act applies only to the occupants of passenger

vehicles’ front seats and defines passenger vehicles to exclude vehicles

constructed on a truck chassis. As a result, state laws do not have to

include the occupants of passenger cars’ rear seats or any occupants of

pickup trucks or many vans, even though over 10,000 occupants of such

vehicles die each year in crashes.

While the number of deaths resulting from crashes of light trucks and vans

might be sufficient reason for focusing greater attention on increasing belt

use in these vehicles, other data also point to this need. Recent data on

crashes show that occupants killed in light trucks were ejected at twice

the rate of occupants of passenger cars. NHTSA officials told us that safety

belts are very successful in preventing such ejections. NHTSA estimated that

Page 37 GAO/RCED-96-24 Increasing Use of Safety Belts
Chapter 4 

Federal Strategies for Increasing Safety Belt

Use

annually 3,600 occupants of light trucks die and 54,000 are injured because

they do not use safety belts. Also, a 1994 national survey of belt use

showed an overall rate of 63-percent use for occupants of passenger cars

and 50 percent for occupants of light trucks.6

 The disparities between the

use rates in cars and light trucks indicate that special emphasis and

targeted programs are needed to increase belt use by the occupants of

light trucks. NHTSA currently does not have such emphasis or programs.

Federal Role in

Encouraging Safety

Belt Use

NHTSA officials told us that they have limited authority to encourage the

states to enact stronger safety belt laws—primary enforcement, higher

fines for nonuse, and coverage for all occupants of vehicles. Additionally,

NHTSA officials told us that the current political environment that favors

local and state initiatives over federal efforts has further reduced the

agency’s ability to influence state and local activities.

The state officials we interviewed reflected the attitude that the states

welcome federal funds but not federal requirements or advice. They told

us that the states still want federal funds for their programs but do not

want any federal influence on how the funds are spent. They generally

agreed that federal financial and technical assistance have helped them

increase belt use, thereby reducing deaths, injuries, and the related costs

to society. Several said that the positive changes might not have occurred

without NHTSA’s influence and the conditions under which the states could

accept federal funds under ISTEA.

While NHTSA’s focus has been on encouraging the states to enact and

enforce laws on safety belt use, other federal agencies have required,

through federal regulations and an executive order, that certain occupants

of vehicles use safety belts. The Federal Aviation Administration requires

each occupant over 2 years old in an airplane to use safety belts during

takeoff and landing.7

 Likewise, the Federal Highway Administration

requires commercial drivers of interstate trucks and buses to use safety

belts.8

 Furthermore, Executive Order 12566, issued in September 1986,

requires federal employees to use safety belts when driving on official

duty. Federal efforts have been effective in encouraging federal employees

to use safety belts in motor vehicles. For example, 48 federal organizations

6

In our May 1992 report, we mentioned this disparity in safety belt use between the occupants of

passenger cars and light trucks. The recent data on this disparity support the limited data that were

available at the time of that report.

7

14 C.F.R. 121.311.

8

49 C.F.R. 392.16.

Page 38 GAO/RCED-96-24 Increasing Use of Safety Belts
Chapter 4 

Federal Strategies for Increasing Safety Belt

Use

reported a rate of at least 90-percent belt use during 1993 based on

observational surveys.

Although federal and state officials often disagree on the roles that federal

and state agencies should play in traffic safety, several recent polls

indicate general public acceptance of laws on mandatory safety belt use. A

recent nationwide public opinion poll of 1,000 people by McKeon and

Associates found strong support for safety belt laws. A large majority

opposed any weakening or repeal of the laws. These results support

findings in individual states. For example, California reported widespread

public knowledge about and compliance with the state’s recent primary

enforcement law. Also, a poll conducted in 1994 for South Carolina found

that 88 percent of the state’s residents supported the state’s law on

mandatory safety belt use.

Canadian Safety Belt

Laws Are Strong and

Very Successful

Safety belt use laws and programs in Canada have been very effective in

achieving a high rate of belt use. As of mid-1994, Canada reported that its

nationwide rate of belt use was about 90 percent in passenger cars and

88 percent in all vehicles, including vans and light trucks. Five of the 12

Canadian jurisdictions reported rates of belt use over 90 percent. Only one

jurisdiction reported a use rate lower than 75 percent. In comparison,

NHTSA estimates that the rate of safety belt use in the United States in 1994

averaged either 58 percent or 67 percent, depending on the methodology

used.

Laws mandating safety belt use were enacted in all 12 Canadian

jurisdictions between 1976 and 1992; most were enacted during the 1980s.

All the jurisdictions’ laws require primary enforcement (compared with

20 percent of the states in the United States), and all the laws cover

occupants of light trucks and vans. Fines for noncompliance are generally

higher in Canada than those in the states, and five Canadian jurisdictions

provide for demerit points against driver’s licenses for violating belt use

laws. In contrast, no U.S. state requires demerit points for such violations.

Four states, however, provide demerit points for violating laws on

restraints for children.

Canada’s success with safety belts appears to result in large part from

designating increased belt use as a top national priority. Safety belt use in

Canada had leveled off at about 75 percent between 1987 and 1989. In

1989, Canadian officials endorsed the recommendation “to have each

jurisdiction set itself the goal of reaching a seat belt use rate of 95% for all

Page 39 GAO/RCED-96-24 Increasing Use of Safety Belts
Chapter 4 

Federal Strategies for Increasing Safety Belt

Use

occupants by 1995.” The Canadian Council of Motor Transport

Administrators developed a strategy, known as the National Occupant

Restraint Program (NORP), to assist the jurisdictions in reaching the goal of

95-percent. NORP involved a 6-year strategy in two phases. Phase I was a

short-term strategy during late 1989 and all of 1990 that included

centralizing the development of training and briefing materials and the

delivery of those materials through coordinating committees in each

jurisdiction. Phase II, covering 1991-95, involved coordinating, in each

jurisdiction, intensive campaigns for enforcement and awareness as well

as efforts to reduce the number of exemptions from the laws on safety belt

use.9

The province of Newfoundland’s experience illustrates how the Canadian

strategy has worked. The province enacted its law on mandatory safety

belt use in 1982. In 1989, the rate of belt use was observed to be 64

percent. In 1990, Newfoundland adopted demerit points for violations of

the law, and belt use increased to 84 percent. The demerit system assesses

2 points for most driving infractions, including nonuse of belts, and the

accumulation of 12 points in a 2-year period results in suspension of the

license. As public awareness campaigns and enforcement programs

continued in 1991, belt use increased to 91 percent. One of the strategies

recommended by NORP was the issuance of at least 4,000 citations for

safety belt violations per year per million population; the rate for 1991 in

Newfoundland was 12,525. In 1992, Newfoundland removed many of the

exemptions in its belt use law, and the rate of use reached almost 95

percent. The rate remained above 95 percent during 1993 and 1994. This

high level of belt use was maintained despite a decrease in the number of

citations issued per million population from 12,525 in 1991 to 507 in 1993.

A Canadian official said the public has been motivated more by the

demerit points provided by the law than by the $45 fine.

Conclusions The Congress faces difficult decisions in balancing the federal and state

roles concerning safety belts while reducing deaths, injuries, and the costs

to society. Increases in the rate of belt use can still be made in many states

through better enforcement of existing laws, but the larger increases are

likely to be achieved through stronger and more comprehensive state laws

on belt use. Stronger state laws could help reduce the thousands of deaths

and serious injuries and save up to $20 billion in costs annually because

9

Belt use laws in some Canadian jurisdictions include exemptions for people with certain medical

conditions, police transporting someone in custody, persons held in custody by the police, ambulance

attendants while treating patients, delivery route drivers making frequent stops and traveling under 40

km/hr, and taxicab drivers.

Page 40 GAO/RCED-96-24 Increasing Use of Safety Belts
Chapter 4 

Federal Strategies for Increasing Safety Belt

Use

safety belts are not used. The general public, through higher taxes and

insurance premiums, pays most of the medical costs for those who fail to

use safety belts. The large number of deaths and injuries and the costs to

society for nonuse of safety belts will likely continue unless the states

adopt stronger and more comprehensive safety belt laws.

Federal strategies can be improved in a variety of ways. The House

Committee on Appropriations recently directed NHTSA to develop and

distribute to the states in 1996 a model safety belt law in order to more

aggressively encourage nationwide use of safety belts. States could be

encouraged to implement comprehensive safety belt programs that

provide for

• primary rather than secondary enforcement;

• coverage of all of the occupants in all of the vehicles in which belts are

installed, including the occupants of passenger cars’ rear seats and the

occupants of light trucks and vans; and

• aggressive enforcement and higher fines/penalties to encourage belt use.

Strong federal involvement has the advantage of facilitating the

nationwide implementation of comprehensive strategies that have proven

to be successful in the states in increasing belt use and reducing deaths,

injuries, and the costs to society. A disadvantage is that the states would

have less authority to structure their own programs.

NHTSA has reported that the rate of belt use by the occupants of light trucks

is only 50 percent. Considering that light trucks now constitute about

40 percent of the new vehicles sold and are increasingly being used to

transport passengers, deaths, injuries, and costs could be avoided by

giving special attention to increasing belt use by the occupants of these

vehicles.

Matter for

Congressional

Consideration

Increased seat belt use has the potential to avoid thousands of deaths and

serious injuries and save billions of dollars in medical costs, lost

productivity, and other expenses resulting annually from the nonuse of

safety belts. The federal government’s role in encouraging safety belt use

is ultimately a policy decision for the U.S. Congress. Current federal

legislation provides for both grants and penalties to encourage the states

to enact safety belt laws or improve enforcement of existing laws.

Comprehensive programs that include primary enforcement laws,

aggressive enforcement, and vigorous public education offer the best

Page 41 GAO/RCED-96-24 Increasing Use of Safety Belts
Chapter 4 

Federal Strategies for Increasing Safety Belt

Use

opportunity for increasing belt use. If the Congress wants to promote this

type of program nationwide, it could encourage the states to adopt a

primary enforcement law that covers all occupants in all vehicles in which

belts are installed. Those states that do not enact such a comprehensive

law could continue to be subject to the provision in the Intermodal

Surface Transportation Efficiency Act requiring a transfer of up to

3 percent of their federal-aid highway funds to their state highway safety

programs.

Recommendation to

the Secretary of

Transportation

In view of the large differences in the rates of safety belt use between the

occupants of passenger cars and the occupants of light trucks, we

recommend that the Department of Transportation provide special

emphasis and targeted programs to increase belt use by the occupants of

light trucks.

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

We provided copies of a draft of our report to DOT for its comments. We

met with agency officials, including the Director, Office of Occupant

Protection, NHTSA, and these officials agreed with the report’s findings,

conclusions, matter for congressional consideration, and

recommendation. The officials agreed that an effective way to increase the

nationwide rate of safety belt use is for the states to have a primary

enforcement law that contains fines to discourage noncompliance and is

aggressively enforced. They agreed that such a law should also cover all of

the occupants of all motor vehicles in which belts are installed. The

officials provided a number of editorial and technical comments, which we

have incorporated in the report where appropriate.

Page 42 GAO/RCED-96-24 Increasing Use of Safety Belts
Page 43 GAO/RCED-96-24 Increasing Use of Safety Belts
Appendix I 

State Laws on Safety Belt Use

State Effective date Enforcement Fine Seats Key belt use provisions

Usage

rate (%)a

Alabama July 18, 1992 Secondary $25 Front Motor vehicles after model

year 1964 designed to carry

no more than 10 persons 55

Alaska Sept. 12, 1990 Secondary $15 All Motor vehicles equipped

with safety belts 69

Arizona Jan. 1, 1991 Secondary $10 Front Motor vehicles after model

year 1971 designed to carry

10 or fewer passengers 60

Arkansas July 15, 1991 Secondary $30 Front Motor vehicles except for

buses and other public

conveyances 51

California Jan. 1, 1986 Primary $20 All Passenger motor vehicles

designed to carry no more

than 10 persons and trucks

of less than 6,000 lbs

unladen weight 83

Colorado July 1, 1987 Secondary $15 Front Passenger cars, small

trucks, vans, taxis,

ambulances, and

recreational vehicles 54

Connecticut Jan. 1, 1986 Primary $37 Front Passenger motor vehicles

(passenger car, station

wagon, camper, trucks with

load capacity of 1,500 lbs

or less, vanpool) 72

Delaware Jan. 1, 1992 Secondary $20 Front Motor vehicles except for

farm tractors, medical

vehicles, and letter carriers 63

District of Columbia Dec. 12, 1985 Secondary $15 Front Motor vehicles with seating

capacity of eight

passengers or fewer 62

Florida July 1, 1986 Secondary $20 Front Motor vehicles, trucks of

unladen weight more than

5,000 lbs except buses and

farm tractors 61

Georgia Sept. 1, 1988 Secondary $15 Front Passenger cars after model

year 1964 designed to carry

10 passengers or less 57

Hawaii Dec. 16, 1985 Primary $20 Front Motor vehicles except

medical, emergency, rental,

and commercial vehicles

and buses 84

Idaho July 1, 1986 Secondary $5 Front Motor vehicles with weight

under 8,000 lbs except for

medical and emergency

vehicles 61

(continued)

Page 44 GAO/RCED-96-24 Increasing Use of Safety Belts
Appendix I 

State Laws on Safety Belt Use

State Effective date Enforcement Fine Seats Key belt use provisions

Usage

rate (%)a

Illinois July 1, 1985 Secondary $25 Front Motor vehicles

manufactured after

12/31/64 except

special-use vehicles 68

Indiana July 1, 1987 Secondary $25 Front Passenger motor vehicles

manufactured after

12/31/64 (including buses

but excluding trucks,

tractors, and recreational

vehicles) 56

Iowa July 1, 1986 Primary $10 Front Motor vehicles after model

year 1965 except

special-use vehicles 73

Kansas July 1, 1986 Secondary $10 Front Passenger cars and vans

manufactured with safety

belts and designed to carry

10 passengers or fewer 70

Kentucky July 13, 1994 Secondary $25 All Motor vehicles

manufactured after

12/31/65 and designed to

carry no more than 10

passengers 58

Louisiana July 1, 1986 Primary $25 Front Passenger cars, vans, and

trucks having gross weight

6,000 lbs or less (including

pickups) manufactured

after 1/1/81 50

Maryland July 1, 1986 Secondary $25 Front Passenger cars,

multipurpose vehicles,

trucks with capacity of 3/4

ton or less and gross weight

of 7,000 lbs or less 69

Massachusetts Feb. 1, 1994 Secondary $25 All Motor vehicles

manufactured after 7/1/66

except buses 47

Michigan July 1, 1985 Secondary $25 Front Motor vehicles

manufactured after 1/1/65

except buses 66

Minnesota Aug. 1, 1986 Secondary $25 Front Passenger cars, pickup

trucks, vans, and

recreational vehicles

manufactured after 12/31/64 57

Mississippi Mar. 20, 1990 Secondary $25 Front Motor vehicles designed to

carry 10 passengers or

fewer except for all-terrain

vehicles, trailers, and

special-use vehicles 43

(continued)

Page 45 GAO/RCED-96-24 Increasing Use of Safety Belts
Appendix I 

State Laws on Safety Belt Use

State Effective date Enforcement Fine Seats Key belt use provisions

Usage

rate (%)a

Missouri Sept. 28, 1985 Secondary $10 Front Motor vehicles

manufactured after

12/31/67 designed to carry

10 passengers or fewer

except trucks 68

Montana Oct. 1, 1987 Secondary $20 All Motor vehicles except

special-use vehicles 69

Nebraska Jan. 1, 1993 Secondary $25 Front Motor vehicles with safety

belts installed by

manufacturer 63

Nevada July 1, 1987 Secondary $25 All Motor vehicles of unladen

weight of less than 6,000

lbs with installed belts 71

New Jersey Mar. 1, 1985 Secondary $20 Front Passenger automobiles

manufactured after 6/30/66 64

New Mexico Jan. 1, 1986 Primary $25 Front Motor vehicles designed to

carry 10 passengers or

fewer except trailers, school

buses, and trucks 79

New York Dec. 1, 1984 Primary $50 Front Motor vehicles except

medical vehicles, taxis,

buses, and other

special-use vehicles 72

North Carolina Oct. 1, 1985 Primary $25 Front Motor vehicles designed for

carrying 10 passengers or

fewer except trailers and

special-use vehicles 81

North Dakota July 14, 1994 Secondary $20 Front Motor vehicles

manufactured with safety

belts and designed to carry

no more than 11

passengers except

special-use vehicles 32

Ohio May 6, 1986 Secondary $25 Front Passenger cars,

commercial cars,

commercial tractors, and

trucks with

factory-equipped safety

belts 62

Oklahoma Feb. 1, 1987 Secondary $10 Front Passenger cars (excluding

trucks, tractors, pickups,

vans, recreational vehicles,

farm-use vehicles,

passengers with medical

excuses, and postal

carriers) 45

(continued)

Page 46 GAO/RCED-96-24 Increasing Use of Safety Belts
Appendix I 

State Laws on Safety Belt Use

State Effective date Enforcement Fine Seats Key belt use provisions

Usage

rate (%)a

Oregon Dec. 7, 1990 Primary $95 All Motor vehicles with safety

belts installed except for

pickup trucks of 8,000 lbs

or less and special-use

vehicles 77

Pennsylvania Nov. 23, 1987 Secondary $10 Front Passenger cars, trucks, and

motor homes manufactured

after 6/30/66 except

special-use vehicles 72

Rhode Island June 18, 1991 Secondary No All Motor vehicles

manufactured after 6/30/66

except special-use vehicles 58

South Carolina July 1, 1989 Secondary $10 Front Passenger cars, trucks,

vans, recreational vehicles

manufactured after 6/30/66

except special-use vehicles 64

South Dakota Jan. 1, 1995 Secondary $20 Front Passenger cars, trucks,

vans, recreational vehicles

manufactured after

12/31/72 except

special-use vehicles 40

Tennessee Apr. 21, 1986 Secondary $25 Front Motor vehicles after model

year 1968 with gross weight

8,500 lbs or less except

special-use vehicles 60

Texas Sept. 1, 1985 Primary $25 Front Passenger cars designed to

carry 10 passengers or less

(including trucks with rated

capacity of not more than

1,500 lbs) except

passengers with medical

excuses and postal carriers 71

Utah Apr. 28, 1986 Secondary $10 Front Motor vehicles

manufactured after 6/30/66

except special-use vehicles 53

Vermont Jan. 1, 1994 Secondary $10 All Motor vehicles except

special-use vehicles 68

Virginia Jan. 1, 1988 Secondary $25 Front Motor vehicles except

special-use vehicles 72

Washington June 11, 1986 Secondary $25 All Motor vehicles including

passenger cars,

multipurpose passenger

vehicles except trailers,

buses, trucks, and

special-use vehicles 81

(continued)

Page 47 GAO/RCED-96-24 Increasing Use of Safety Belts
Appendix I 

State Laws on Safety Belt Use

State Effective date Enforcement Fine Seats Key belt use provisions

Usage

rate (%)a

West Virginia Sept. 1, 1993 Secondary $25 Front Motor vehicles

manufactured after

12/31/66 designed to

transport 10 passengers or

fewer except trailers and

special-use vehicles 58

Wisconsin Dec. 1, 1987 Secondary $10 All Motor vehicles

manufactured after

12/31/71 except

special-use vehicles 64

Wyoming June 8, 1989 Secondary No Front Motor vehicles (including

pickup trucks) designed to

carry 11 persons or fewer

and primarily used to

transport persons except

special-use vehicles b

Note: Total safety belt use laws: 48 states and the District of Columbia. New Hampshire and

Maine have no use laws.

aReported in December 1994.

bNo usage rate provided.

Source: NHTSA Traffic Safety Programs, Nov. 1995.

Page 48 GAO/RCED-96-24 Increasing Use of Safety Belts
Appendix II 

Major Contributors to This Report

Transportation and

Telecommunications

Issues

Ronnie E. Wood, Assistant Director

R. Kenneth Schmidt, Evaluator-in-Charge (retired)

MeShae Brooks-Rollings

Karlton P. Davis

Susan K. Hoffman

David K. Hooper

Lynne Goldfarb

Paul D. Lacey

Sara Ann Moessbauer

Phyllis F. Scheinberg

Mike Volpe

(342890) Page 49 GAO/RCED-96-24 Increasing Use of Safety Belts
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a

single address are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100