DOT HS 811 535 September 2011

Determining the Relationship of 

Primary Seat Belt Laws to 

Minority Ticketing
DISCLAIMER

This publication is distributed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration, in the interest of information exchange. The opinions, findings, 

and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those 

of the Department of Transportation or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. If trade names, 

manufacturers’ names, or specific products are mentioned, it is because they are considered essential 

to the object of the publication and should not be construed as an endorsement. The United States 

Government does not endorse products or manufacturers.

APA Format Citation:

Tison, J., Williams, A. F., Chaudhary, N. K., & Nichols, J. L. (2011, September). Determining the 

Relationship of Primary Seat Belt Laws to Minority Ticketing. (Final Report. Report No. DOT HS 

811 535). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 
i

 Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No. 

DOT HS 811 535

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

4. Title and Subtitle

Determining the Relationship of Primary Seat Belt Laws to 

Minority Ticketing

5. Report Date

September 2011

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s)

Julie Tison, Allan F. Williams, Neil K. Chaudhary, James L. Nichols

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

Preusser Research Group, Inc.

7100 Main Street

Trumbull, CT 06611

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTNH22-05-D-15043 

Task Order 0018

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

U.S. Department of Transportation

Office of Behavioral Safety Research

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.

Washington, DC 20590

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Final Report, 2000-2009

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

16. Abstract

Racial profiling is often raised as an issue when States change their seat belt law from secondary enforcement (i.e., stop 

only for some other violation) to primary enforcement (i.e., stop for an observed belt law violation alone). Thirteen States 

made this change during the period 2000 to 2009, of which 7 did so early enough to allow for comparison of two years of 

data before the change to two years of data after the law change. Pre- and post- comparisons using fatal crash data 

demonstrated an overall drop in the number of front-seat occupant fatalities (-8% overall; -7% Caucasian, -11% Minority) 

and overall increases in belt use, both among Caucasians and minorities (+8 percentage points overall; +9 Caucasian, +5 

Minority). Pre- and post- citation data by race were available from 4 States. Consistent with previous research, all four 

States showed that the percentage of tickets issued to minorities either stayed the same or decreased slightly from before to 

after the law change. Hospital discharge data (three States) indicated reductions in crash injury for both Caucasians and 

minorities. This study found that primary laws were related to gains in seat belt use without evidence of racial profiling 

associated with changing the law from secondary to primary. 

22. Key Words 

 Seat belt Primary Law Minority Racial Profiling

18. Distribution Statement

Document is available to the public from the National 

Technical Information Service www.ntis.gov

19. Security Classif.(of this report)

 Unclassified

20. Security Classif.(of this page)

 Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

 52

22. Price

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized
ii

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TECHNICAL SUMMARY CONTRACTOR

Preusser Research Group, Inc. 

CONTRACT NUMBER

DTNH22-05-D-15043

Task Order 0018

REPORT TITLE

Determining the Relationship of Primary Seat Belt Laws to Minority Ticketing

REPORT DATE

September 2011

REPORT AUTHOR(S)

Julie Tison, Allan F. Williams, Neil K. Chaudhary, James L. Nichols

BACKGROUND

Conversions from secondary to primary seat belt enforcement have produced 

important safety benefits. However, the conversions inevitably renewed concerns about 

the possibility of differential enforcement involving minority groups. Early studies 

reported no evidence of systematic differential enforcement involving minority groups 

following the change. Since those earlier studies, 17 additional States have upgraded to 

primary enforcement. While approval ratings for primary laws are high, issues of 

minority harassment, differential enforcement, racial profiling, and “driving while Black” 

still arise in discussions of converting seat belt laws to primary enforcement status. The 

present study extends the earlier work, investigating changes in fatality and injury rates in 

minority and majority populations after States switch from secondary to primary

enforcement, as well as investigating evidence of differential enforcement.

OBJECTIVE

This new study is based on a larger sample of States from different regions of the 

country that have more recently converted to primary enforcement laws. This study 

addressed the following questions: 

1) How did conversions to primary enforcement affect belt use among 

fatally injured front seat occupants, by race/ethnicity?

2) How did conversions affect seat belt citations by race/ethnicity?

3) How did conversions affect the number of hospital admissions for 

injuries from motor vehicle crashes?

4) How were issues of differential enforcement for minority populations 

covered in news reports?

5) How did legislative bills to introduce primary enforcement address the 

issue of differential enforcement?

METHODS

Archival data were collected in order to evaluate the impact of upgrades to primary seat 

belt laws. Although 13 States upgraded their laws in the study period, only 7 of the 13 

had sufficient pre- and post- data available for analysis (two years before and two years 

after). Data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) were used to evaluate 

overall changes in belt use in 7 States, before and after the law change. The magnitude of 
iii

change in belt use was also compared across racial categories, before and after the law 

change. The number of seat belt citations were provided by most participating States and 

the distribution of citations across races was used to assess potential differential 

enforcement of the law based on race, before and after the law upgrade. Hospital 

discharge data were obtained from a number of States and allowed for a comparison of 

the number and rate of injury by race, before and after implementation of a primary seat 

belt law. News reports about the law change were collected from 6 of the 13 States that 

upgraded their seat belt law between 2000 and 2009. Full articles were collected for the 

two-year period leading to the law change and were coded for content. Copies of the 

actual primary seat belt law were obtained for each of the 13 States and were reviewed to 

determine if the law specifically mentioned race or racial profiling. 

RESULTS

Belt Use in Fatal Crashes

Thirteen States upgraded their seat belt laws since 2000. Analyses of effects of 

law upgrade within the States (i.e., pre- to post-law change) were conducted on a subset 

of these 13 States. Analyses were based on known and proper belt use by fatally injured 

outboard front seat passenger vehicle occupants, age 16 and above. The overall number 

of fatalities in the study States dropped by 8.1% from pre- to post- upgrade and similar 

decreases were observed for the major racial groups. From pre- to post-, Caucasians 

showed a 7.4% decrease in fatalities and minorities showed an 11.3% decrease in 

fatalities. The African-American subgroup showed a 10.1% decrease, and the Other 

subgroup, representing only 2% of all fatalities, showed a 19.9% decrease. Chi-square 

analyses indicated that the overall decrease in fatalities was significant. Caucasians and 

minorities showed a similar decrease in number of fatalities pre- to post-law change.

Number of Fatalities, Pre- Versus PostNumber of Fatalities

% Change

% Total Fatalities

Pre Post Pre Post

All Fatalities 8,342 7,668 -8.1% 100% 100%

Caucasian 6,894 6,383 -7.4% 83% 83%

Minority (incl. African-Am.) 1,448 1,285 -11.3% 17% 17%

African-American 1,282 1,152 -10.1% 15% 15%

Other 166 133 -19.9% 2% 2%

The overall proportion of belt use in fatalities increased by 8 percentage points, 

from 34% to 42%, pre- to post-, respectively. Belt use in fatally injured Caucasian 

occupants increased from 35% pre- to 44% post-, a 9-percentage-point increase 

(p<.0001). Fatally injured African-American occupants also showed an increase in belt 

use from 28% to 32%, pre- to post-, respectively (p=.01). Caucasians showed an increase 

in belt use in all 7 States, whereas the minority group showed an increase in 5 of the 7

States.
iv

Belt Citations

Four States provided seat belt citation data covering the period before and after 

the law upgrade. During the pre-period, an average of 11% of citations were issued to 

minorities in Kentucky, compared to an average of 10% after the law upgrade. In 

Mississippi, minorities were issued 55% of citations on average before the law; this 

declined to 53% after implementation of the primary seat belt law. In South Carolina, 

minorities received an average of 38% of seat belt citations before the law and 37.5% of 

citations after the law. The pattern in Tennessee was also stable with minorities being 

issued 13% of citations before the law change, and an average of 13% after the law 

change. Thus seat belt citation data reveal no real change in pattern of citations across 

races before and after the law change.

Percentage Seat Belt Citations by Race

State Race Pre Post

2 years 1 year 1 year 2 years

Kentucky Caucasian 89% 90% 90% 90%

Minority 11% 11% 10% 10%

Mississippi Caucasian 43% 47% 47% 47%

Minority 57% 53% 53% 53%

South Carolina Caucasian 62% 62% 63% 62%

Minority 38% 38% 37% 38%

Tennessee Caucasian n/a 87% 87% 88%

Minority n/a 13% 14% 12%

Injuries

The 7 study States were contacted in order to obtain hospital discharge data for 

each State’s pre- and post-law change period. Data from 3 of these States were obtained: 

Kentucky, South Carolina, and Washington. Ideally, the race of each patient would have 

been indicated and used to assess any changes in rate of injuries by race from pre- to 

post-law upgrade. Unfortunately, such data were only available for South Carolina. In 

Washington and Kentucky, ZIP codes were used as a proxy to race. In both States where 

ZIP codes were used as a proxy for actual race there was a greater decrease, albeit nonsignificant, in the minority admissions than in the White admissions. In South Carolina, 

where the actual race was known, there was also a decrease in admissions from pre- to 

post-law change. The decrease was lower among African-Americans than Caucasian 

patients, but this difference between races was not significant. 

News Report

Almost 200 news articles were collected from 6 States: Arkansas, Florida, 

Minnesota, and Wisconsin – all of which upgraded in 2009- as well as Maine and Alaska, 

which upgraded in 2007 and 2006, respectively. Racial profiling was mentioned in 43.5% 

of articles while 56.5% of articles made no mention of it. Approximately one-third of 

news reports presented arguments favorable to the primary seat belt law (34%); 8% 

presented arguments unfavorable to the primary law upgrade; 35% reported a balanced 

view (i.e., judged to present both favorable and unfavorable arguments); and 24% were 

neutral. There were wide variations between States in percentage of articles mentioning 

racial profiling. Some States made no mention of racial profiling.
v

CONCLUSION

Earlier research on conversion of seat belt laws to primary enforcement indicated 

that minorities (in most cases African-Americans) perceive stricter enforcement than 

Caucasians and are more likely to believe they will get a ticket if unbelted. The present 

study has an advantage over earlier work in that it is based on a greater number of States. 

The States are located in various regions of the country providing a broad reflection of 

experience with primary laws in the United States.

The results show clearly the advantages of primary belt laws. Seat belt use 

increased in each of the 7 States studied, with an average gain of 8 percentage points. 

Significant gains were made among Caucasians, African-Americans, and other 

minorities. However, the gains were not proportionately greater in the minority groups, 

and African-Americans had substantially lower belt use than Whites both when the laws 

were secondary and when they were primary. The information on changes in hospital 

admissions was obtainable from fewer States, but it also showed the advantage of 

primary laws. There were decreases in hospital admissions for all groups, but data 

limitations hampered the comparisons and the results were inconclusive.

The numbers of citations for nonuse of seat belts increased substantially in every 

State that switched to primary, and increases occurred in all groups. However, the 

percentage of citations received by each group changed very little.

Most of the news articles published before passage of the primary laws were 

favorable about primary laws. State laws were mostly silent on the subject of differential 

enforcement. A few of the laws spelled out specific guidelines for enforcement, generally 

indicating criteria for making stops or what could or could not be done once the stop was 

made. Only the Florida law called for the establishment of departmental plans designed to 

prohibit racial profiling practices.

The change to primary laws was associated with gains in belt use in all groups. 

While the overall number of seat belt citations increased after the primary laws went into 

effect, the proportion of citations by race remained about the same after the law change. 

There was no evidence of racial profiling associated with changing the law from 

secondary to primary enforcement.
vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

HISTORY OF SECONDARY LAWS............................................................................1

THE ADVANTAGE OF PRIMARY LAWS....................................................................1

CONVERSIONS TO PRIMARY ENFORCEMENT.......................................................1

Do Primary Law Conversions Promote Differential Enforcement? ...........................2

Seat Belt Use After Changing to Primary Enforcement............................................4

Summary of Findings From Early Studies................................................................5

NEED FOR A NEW STUDY .....................................................................................5

II. EVALUATION METHODS................................................................................7

FATALITY ANALYSIS REPORTING SYSTEM............................................................7

CITATION DATA.........................................................................................................8

HOSPITAL DISCHARGE DATA..................................................................................8

NEWS REPORTS .......................................................................................................8

LEGISLATIVE BILLS...................................................................................................9

III. RESULTS ....................................................................................................10

SEAT BELT USE IN FATALITIES .............................................................................10

Primary Versus Secondary Law States..................................................................10

Pre- Versus Post-Law Upgrade .............................................................................11

SEAT BELT CITATION DATA.............................................................................14

Kentucky ...............................................................................................................14

Mississippi.............................................................................................................16

South Carolina.......................................................................................................18

Tennessee.............................................................................................................20

Illinois ....................................................................................................................22

Florida ...................................................................................................................24

CRASH-RELATED INJURY DATA............................................................................26

Kentucky ...............................................................................................................26

Washington ...........................................................................................................27

South Carolina.......................................................................................................27

Conclusion.............................................................................................................28

NEWS REPORTS..............................................................................................28

Inter-Rater Reliability .............................................................................................28

Coding...................................................................................................................28

IV. DISCUSSION ................................................................................................30

V. REFERENCES...............................................................................................32

APPENDIX A. STATES BY SEAT BELT LAW ENFORCEMENT STATUS, 

1993-2009...................................................................................35

APPENDIX B: LEGISLATIVE BILLS.................................................................36

APPENDIX C. NEWS REPORTS CODING SHEET...........................................40
1

I. INTRODUCTION

HISTORY OF SECONDARY LAWS

The first State seat belt use law in the United States was enacted in New York in 

1984, spurred by a coalition led by the medical community. The New York law allowed 

for primary, or standard, enforcement, as do belt use laws in all other countries with seat 

belt laws. Weeks later, the U. S. Department of Transportation issued a rule including a 

provision that passive restraints would not be required if a certain number of States 

passed belt use laws meeting specified minimum criteria. In response, the automobile 

industry funded a massive campaign to enact State seat belt laws. The ensuing flurry of 

lawmaking resulted in many laws with secondary enforcement provisions (Haseltine, 

2001). The DOT rulemaking had not anticipated this development and did not specify 

how laws were to be enforced.

New Jersey was the second State with a belt use law, in 1985. Due to concerns 

that the law might be used to harass minorities, New Jersey added a provision that 

prohibited officers from stopping vehicles solely because of a belt violation. A seat belt 

ticket could not be issued unless the vehicle was stopped for some other violation. Most 

other States followed New Jersey’s lead, partly as a way of gaining the necessary votes. 

As originally passed, 39 of the 49 belt use laws in the United States included secondary 

enforcement provisions.

THE ADVANTAGE OF PRIMARY LAWS

Once belt use laws had been in place for a few years, several things became 

evident. One was that a law by itself was insufficient to increase belt use adequately, and 

that enforcement campaigns modeled on those used in Canada would be needed to boost 

use rates (Williams & Wells, 2004). Research studies established that converting nonusers was particularly important because they had characteristics that put them at higher 

crash risk than users (Preusser, Williams, & Lund, 1991). It also became clear that the 

easier-to-enforce primary belt use laws resulted in substantially higher belt use than did 

secondary laws (Campbell, 1988), and that enforcement campaigns were more 

straightforward if stops could be made directly for belt law violations. Surveys indicated 

that the public was well aware of the enforcement provisions, and that non-users in 

secondary States recognized their protected status. Motorists in primary States were much 

more likely to think they would be stopped and cited for a belt law violation than those in 

secondary States (Cammisa, Williams, & Ferguson, 2000). This combination of factors 

provided motivation for converting from secondary to primary enforcement status. 

CONVERSIONS TO PRIMARY ENFORCEMENT 

In the years 1993 to 2009, 22 States and the District of Columbia converted from 

secondary to primary enforcement (see Appendix A for States and conversion dates). The 
2

positive results of conversions to primary have been extensively documented (e.g., DinhZarr et al., 2001; Hedlund, Gilbert, Ledingham, & Preusser, 2008). As summarized by

Nichols and Ledingham (2008), in the 18 States that made this conversion between 1993 

and 1997, there was a median 13- to 16-percentage-point increase in seat belt use. In a 

study of States that converted to primary enforcement, annual driver fatality rates 

decreased by 7% after accounting for possible economic effects and general time trends 

(Farmer & Williams, 2005). Cost savings, primarily involving medical care, are 

estimated to be $158 million per State annually (Nichols & Ledingham, 2008).

Do Primary Law Conversions Promote Differential Enforcement?

Conversions to primary enforcement have produced important safety benefits. 

However, the conversions inevitably renewed concerns about the possibility of 

differential enforcement involving minority groups. The National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration commissioned studies in 6 of the initial jurisdictions to make the change. 

These included the first three States to switch to primary enforcement: California, in 1993 

(Ulmer, Preusser, & Preusser, 1994); Louisiana, in 1995 (Preusser & Preusser, 1997); and 

Georgia, in 1996 (Ulmer, Preusser, & Preusser, under review). A subsequent study 

addressed Maryland, Oklahoma, and the District of Columbia, all converting in 1997 

(Solomon, Preusser, & Nissen, 2001). 

The initial study in California mainly addressed the extent to which belt use 

changed following the conversion. Observational studies indicated a large increase, from 

58 to 76 percent. The focus was not on race/ethnicity issues, but surveys of motorists 

renewing or applying for licenses at Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) offices 

revealed some striking differences in perceptions of enforcement. Specifically, Hispanics, 

the dominant minority in California, were much more likely than Caucasians to perceive 

a “high likelihood” of receiving a ticket for not wearing a seat belt (71% versus 45%), 

and to judge enforcement by the California Highway Patrol as “very strict” (58% versus

34%). These results raised the specter of differential enforcement, although when asked if 

they had received a ticket, an equal percentage of Hispanics and Caucasians (13%) 

replied affirmatively.

The later studies of conversions to primary were carried out in States where 

African-Americans were the dominant minority. Information was obtained from 

Caucasians and African-Americans on perceptions of enforcement, self-reported receipt 

of seat belt citations, self-reported changes in belt use, official data on citations, and 

observed seat belt use. Data on citations and observed belt use were not always available 

statewide, but in some cases could be obtained from local communities.

The results, summarized in Tables 1-3, showed a consistent pattern across the five 

jurisdictions. In terms of perceptions of enforcement, the results echoed those found 

among Hispanics in California. That is, in all five jurisdictions, African-Americans – by a 

wide margin – perceived stronger enforcement than Caucasians, in terms of their chances 

of getting a ticket if unbelted, and in how strict police enforcement was (Table 1). Yet, as 

indicated in Table 2, the proportions of African-Americans and Caucasians who said they 

had ever received a belt citation for non-use differed little. The exception was in the 
3

District of Columbia, where 13% of African-Americans and 7% of Caucasians said they 

had been cited. This difference was not statistically significant but is suggestive of a real 

difference. However, it cannot be interpreted as a possible effect of the conversion to 

primary, since the citation could have been received when the law was secondary. It also 

cannot be known if this is a possible result of racial profiling in general without 

information on belt use by race in the District of Columbia, which is unavailable. For 

instance, if belt use were much lower among African-Americans than Caucasians, a 

higher citation rate among the former would be expected.

 

 Table 1. DMV Survey Respondents: Perceptions of Enforcement (% agree)

High Ticket 

Likelihood

State Police 

Strictly Enforce

Local Police 

Strictly Enforce

Louisiana African-Americans 34% 37% 30%

Caucasians 25% 22% 18%

Georgia African-Americans 45% 34% 29%

Caucasians 36% 25% 18%

Oklahoma African-Americans 51% 29% 27%

Caucasians 38% 21% 19%

Maryland African-Americans 50% 42% 40%

Caucasians 42% 26% 22%

District of 

Columbia

African-Americans 42% * 24%

Caucasians 14% * 4%

* no State police force

 

 

Table 2. Percentage Reporting Having Received a Seat Belt Citation

State African-Americans Caucasians

Louisiana 8% 8%

Georgia 8% 8%

Oklahoma 7% 9%

Maryland 16% 14%

District of Columbia 13% 7%

A more meaningful indicator of differential enforcement triggered by converting 

to primary enforcement is the extent to which the proportion of tickets issued to AfricanAmericans changed from before to after the conversion. Table 3 presents this information 

for the three States where it was available. The overall number of tickets issued for nonuse of belts increased in all jurisdictions with primary enforcement, as would be 

expected. However, the proportion of tickets issued to African-Americans was lower 

under primary enforcement in 2 of the States (Louisiana and Georgia), and was about the 

same in Maryland, with 27% of the tickets to African-Americans under secondary 

enforcement and 26% after conversion to primary enforcement. Unfortunately, data from 

the District of Columbia were not available to help clarify the difference in self-reported 

ticketing.
4

Table 3. Percentage of Citations Issued to African-Americans Before 

and After Primary Law in Effect

State Before Law Change After Law Change

Louisiana 12% 5%

Georgia 36-45% 29%

Maryland 27% 26%

Seat Belt Use after Changing to Primary Enforcement

Studies have shown increases of 10 percentage points or more in overall belt use 

(Preusser & Preusser, 1997; Solomon, Preusser, & Nissen, 2001). Self-reported data 

suggested that belt use increased more among African-Americans than Caucasians. That 

is, in Maryland, 54% of African-Americans and 40% of Caucasians said that their belt 

use increased with the conversion to primary enforcement, as did 60% of AfricanAmericans versus 51% of Caucasians in Oklahoma, and 60% of African-Americans 

compared with only 24% of Caucasians in the District of Columbia. Data on observed 

belt use by race, where available, provided confirmation of a greater increase among 

African-Americans. For example, in Maryland, observed belt use by African-Americans 

after the conversion was 93% compared with 91% among Caucasians, whereas under 

secondary enforcement belt use for African-Americans was several percentage points 

lower than among Caucasians. In Louisiana, belt use by African-Americans was 11 

percentage points lower than for Caucasians under primary enforcement, but it had been 

18 percentage points lower under secondary enforcement. In Oklahoma, belt use under 

primary enforcement was 66% for both groups, although there was no available measure 

of belt use prior to the conversion.

The increased belt use by African-Americans in primary enforcement States helps 

to explain the mixed results found in other surveys of racial differences in observed belt 

use. Surveys conducted in the late 1990s typically found that African-Americans had 

lower use rates than Caucasians (NHTSA, 2000; Ellis et al, 2000). Primary enforcement 

appears to eliminate this difference, or even reverse the pattern. For example, in North 

Carolina, a primary enforcement State, belt use by Caucasians was substantially higher 

than among African-Americans before the law. In most years since the law, belt use by 

African-Americans has exceeded the use rate among Caucasians (Reinfurt, 2000). In an 

observational survey conducted in two cities with secondary laws (Boston, Chicago) and 

two cities with primary laws (Houston, New York City), there were no clear differences 

in belt use between African-Americans and Caucasians in primary cities. In secondary 

cities, African-Americans were less likely to be belted than Caucasians, among 

populations both with and without college degrees (Wells, Williams, & Farmer, 2002). 
5

Summary of Findings from Early Studies

Studies have shown that minorities perceive stricter enforcement than Caucasians, and 

were more likely to believe that they will get a ticket if unbelted (Preusser & Preusser, 

1997; Ulmer, Preusser, & Preusser, under review; Solomon, Preusser, & Nissen, 2001). A 

survey in North Carolina also indicated that African-Americans were more sensitive than 

Caucasians to seat belt enforcement (Benjamin, Price, & Reinfurt, 1996). As a result, 

African-Americans were more likely than Caucasians to increase their use of seat belts 

once the conversion to primary enforcement was made. Although ticketing increased with 

primary enforcement, there was no evidence of a change in the distribution of citations 

across racial groups. The proportion of the total tickets that were issued to AfricanAmericans decreased following passage to primary enforcement. Part of the reason for 

this could be a result of their proportionately greater increase in the use of belts. 

Whatever the case, primary enforcement resulted in higher belt use in general, 

particularly among African-Americans, and a more uniform number of citations across 

racial groups and greater protection for motor vehicle occupants. 

Differential enforcement is clearly undesirable. What makes seat belt laws work 

is the heightened perception that they are being strictly enforced. Primary laws enhance 

the perception of enforcement in general, thereby motivating people to obey an important 

law. Notably, it is not only primary laws that motivate belt use among minority groups. 

It has also been found that in enforcement campaigns in general, belt use increases are 

greater among Hispanics and African-Americans than among Caucasians (Glassbrenner, 

2003; Nichols, 2003). 

NEED FOR A NEW STUDY 

Since the studies in the first group of States to convert to primary laws, 17 other 

States have taken this step. There has been no reported evidence of systematic differential 

enforcement involving minority groups. In many States, minority organizations and 

minority individuals have been in the forefront in support of the change, and overall 

approval ratings for primary laws are higher among Hispanics (74%) and AfricanAmericans (67%) than among Caucasians (62%) (NHTSA, 2008). In some States a civil 

liberties provision was put in the law that explicitly addressed the potential for 

harassment. 

Despite the high approval ratings, issues of minority harassment, differential 

enforcement, racial profiling, and “driving while Black” still arise in discussions of 

converting seat belt laws to primary enforcement status. The earlier studies established 

the heightened enforcement sensitivity of minority groups in response to primary laws 

and the resultant increases in belt use. The present study extends the earlier work, in 

particular investigating bottom line effects: changes in injury rates in minority and 

majority populations after switching from secondary to primary. This new study is based 

on a larger sample of States from different regions of the country that have more recently 

converted to primary. It provides a thorough analysis of the effects of the conversions and 
6

guidance to the 19 States still operating under secondary enforcement rules (see 

Appendix A). The following main questions were addressed.

• How did conversions to primary enforcement affect belt use among fatally injured 

front seat occupants, by race/ethnicity?

• How did conversions to primary enforcement law affect seat belt citations by 

race/ethnicity?

• How did conversions to primary enforcement affect crash-related injuries and 

fatalities by race/ethnicity?

• How did news reports about the implementation of primary enforcement address 

issues of differential enforcement for minority populations?

• How did legislative bills to introduce primary enforcement address the issue of 

differential enforcement?

All 13 States that switched to primary after 2000 were included. Seven had 

sufficient post-law data to conduct pre-post- analyses (Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, 

Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington). Others that made the change 

in very recent years were studied only in terms of news reports and legislative bills 

(Florida, Arkansas, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Maine, and Alaska). 
7

II. EVALUATION METHODS

Archival data were collected in order to evaluate the impact of an upgrade to a

primary seat belt law on belt use of minority groups. Data of interest include proportion 

of belted fatalities, number of seat belt citations, number and severity of injuries, news 

reports and legislative bills. 

FATALITY ANALYSIS REPORTING SYSTEM

Belt use was tracked across time and across States using data obtained from the 

Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), which provides information regarding belt 

use among fatally injured passenger vehicle occupants. One major advantage of using 

FARS data is that race information is generally available. Belt use rates in fatal crashes

are lower than observed rates, in part because belts prevent some fatalities, but also

because individuals more likely to be in potentially fatal crashes are less likely to use seat 

belts. As such, belt use based on FARS data are closely related to seat belt use rates in 

potentially fatal crashes, which are the situations where belt use is most important. FARS 

was used to evaluate overall changes in belt use in 7 States, before and after the law 

change. Magnitude of change in belt use was also compared across racial categories, preand post-law change. Changes in overall belt use and across races were also compared 

between primary and secondary law States.

Rates of belt use among fatally injured passenger vehicle occupants were used as 

an estimate of belt use and were compared across race and time. FARS data were used to 

identify changes in belt use by comparing the two-year period before the law change to 

the two-year period following the law change. The transition year was left out of any 

analyses. Belt use among fatalities was also used in the following fashion:

• To compare belt use rates of Caucasians and minorities among the 7 study 

States. The latter was further broken down into African-American and Other 

Race. Magnitude of change pre- and post-law was also compared;

• Belt use rates were compared between secondary and primary law States.

These were further broken down into use rate by law type across racial 

groups. This allowed for exploration of a differential effect of law type by 

race.

FARS data were used to examine change in the proportion of belted fatalities 

before and after the law upgrade. The pre- and post- periods were tailored specifically to 

each of the 7 study States. FARS data was classified into two equal periods, “pre-law” 

(two years before the law change) and “post-law” (two years after the law change). The 

year of law change was excluded. For instance, if a State upgraded its law in 2005, the 

pre-period data would consist of fatal crashes occurring in the years 2003 and 2004, 

whereas the post-period data would consist of fatal crashes occurring in the years 2006 

and 2007. A chi-square analysis was used to compare the pre- and the post- period. A 

binary logistic regression was used to explore for differential effect of the law change 

across races.
8

CITATION DATA

Details about the number and distribution of seat belt citations were also provided 

by most participating States across the period reviewed. Belt citations distribution by race 

were analyzed wherever available. Seat belt citation data were used to track trends in seat 

belt enforcement and examine variation across years and between races. Law 

enforcement agencies were contacted and belt citation data were requested for the twoyear period before and after the law change. Efforts were made to obtain the data by race, 

where available. Data on speeding citations were also collected as a point of comparison.

Citation data were used in the following fashion: 

• To explore expected variation in level of enforcement before and after the 

law;

• To compare distribution across race and population size for both speeding and 

belt citations pre- and post-law.

HOSPITAL DISCHARGE DATA

Hospital discharge data were requested from individual States and were used to 

assess changes in number of injuries across years and across races. Where available, data 

were requested for the two-year period before and after the law change. In cases where 

race information was not available, race distribution was approximated using ZIP code 

(based on 2000 Census). Hospital discharge data were used in the following fashion:

• To explore the potential impact of the primary law on number of injuries 

resulting from motor vehicle crashes;

• To assess whether passage of the law and its associated effects on number 

of injuries varied among racial groups. 

NEWS REPORTS

News reports about the law change were collected from 6 of the 13 States that 

upgraded their seat belt law between 2000 and 2009. Full articles were collected using 

two search engines, LexisNexis and Google News, for the two-year period leading to the 

law change and were coded for content. In addition, copies of the actual primary seat belt 

law were obtained for each of the 13 States and were reviewed to determine if the law 

specifically mentioned race or racial profiling. 

Two coders read each article and noted the nature of the report (news or editorial), 

whether or not racial profiling was mentioned, and whether the article was overall in 

favor or against primary law upgrade. Inter-rater reliability was assessed. News reports 

data were used in the following fashion:

• To explore the prevalence of the issue of racial profiling in the debate and

if present;

• To explore how various States addressed concerns over racial profiling;

• To assess overall opinion regarding an upgrade to primary law.
9

LEGISLATIVE BILLS

Thirteen States implemented primary seat belt laws between 2000 and 2009. A 

copy of the law was obtained for each of the 13 States by visiting the State legislature 

Web site of each included State and was completed by information displayed at 

www.iihs.org/laws.SafetyBeltUse.aspx. Twelve of 13 States made no mention of racial 

profiling. A summary of the law for each of the 13 States is provided in Appendix B. 
10

III. RESULTS

The primary purpose of the study was to assess the effects of changing from 

secondary to primary enforcement status in States that did so since 2000. Data examined 

included changes in seat belt use, citations and injuries, and whether there were 

differential effects by race/ethnicity. Before presenting that data, it is useful to look at 

overall seat belt use in fatally injured front seat occupants by race/ethnicity in secondary 

versus primary States over the entire 2002-2008 period. Although belt use rates in fatal 

crashes are lower than observed rates, there is a high degree of correlation (0.80) between 

the two (Tison, Williams, & Chaudhary, 2010). 

SEAT BELT USE IN FATALITIES

Primary Versus Secondary Law States

Data covering the years 2000 to 2008 were collected and compiled for analysis. 

Belt use rates were compared between States with primary and secondary laws and were 

further divided by race. Race categories included Caucasian (84% of fatalities), AfricanAmerican (12%), and Other (4%, of which 46% were Asian, 37% Native and 17% 

multiple races or other). A wider “Minority” category was created which included all 

non-Caucasian occupants (72% of which were African-Americans). Hispanic origin was 

not included as a variable since it can apply to any race. Thus in this analysis, persons of 

Hispanic background could appear in any race category, be it Caucasian, AfricanAmerican or the more general Minority category. Occupants of unknown race were 

excluded from the analyses. Analyses were limited to known and proper belt use by 

fatally injured passenger vehicle front seat outboard occupants age 16 and older. For 

States that changed their seat belt laws, the year of conversion was excluded from the 

analyses. Chi-square analyses and binary logistic regressions were used as deemed 

appropriate. Significance level (α) was set at p<.01. 

An overall comparison of belt use by fatally injured occupants showed that 

percentage belted was significantly higher in primary States (52%) than in secondary 

States (37%). Breaking down the data by race of occupant (Caucasian, minority) showed 

a similar pattern. Fatally injured Caucasian occupants had significantly higher percentage 

of belt use in primary States (52%) than in secondary States (38%); fatally injured 

minorities showed 48% belt use in primary States compared to 31% in secondary States 

(p<.0001). A binary logistic regression was computed to determine if the 

primary/secondary difference was significantly larger for the minority group than the 

Caucasian group. Results revealed a significant main effect of law type (Wald (1) 

=192.69, p<.0001) indicating significantly higher belt use in primary law States than in 

secondary law States. The main effect of race was also significant (Wald (1) =200.55, 

p<.0001), indicating greater percentage of belted in Caucasian victims than minority

victims. The interaction term also reached significance (Wald (1) = 24.05, p<.0001), 

revealing that there was a bigger difference in primary versus secondary belt use for 

minority victims than Caucasian victims. This suggests that minorities may reap greater 
11

benefits from a primary law than non-minorities (see Table 4 for a breakdown of belt use 

by race).

Table 4. Percentage Belted Fatalities in Primary and Secondary States, by Race, 2000-2008

Primary

Belt Use

Secondary

Belt Use

% of Total

Fatalities

Overall 51.6%

(N=97,491)

37.2%

(N=91,877)

100%

(N=189,368)

Caucasian 52.4%

(N=80,595)

38.0%

(N=80,289)

85%

(N=160,884)

Minority 48.2%

(N=16,896)

31.2%

(N=11,588)

15%

(N=28,484)

African-American 44.4%

(N=12,098)

30.1%

(N=8,527)

11%

(N=20,625)

Other 57.5%

(N=4,798)

34.4%

(N=3,061)

4%

(N=7,859)

The minority group was further broken down into an African-American group and 

an Other group. These two groups also showed a significantly larger percentage of belt 

use in primary enforcement States than in secondary enforcement States. AfricanAmericans showed a 14-percentage-point difference (44% belted in primary States versus

30% in secondary States); the Other group showed a 23-percentage-point difference 

(from 58% in primary States to 34% belted in secondary States). When broken down this 

way, the law by race interaction was again significant when comparing the Caucasian 

group to the Other group (Wald (1) = 55.44, p<.0001. The law by race interaction 

comparing the Caucasian group to the African-American group was not significant (Wald 

(1) = 1.47, p>.05).

Pre- Versus Post-law Upgrade

Thirteen States upgraded their laws since 2000. Analyses of effects of law 

upgrade within the States (i.e., pre- to post-law change) were conducted on a subset of 

these 13 States. States were selected based on two criteria. First, States were required to 

have a sufficient pre- and post-law change period (two years pre-, two years post-). As 

such, States having upgraded their law after 2006 were not included in the FARS 

analysis. Second, study States were also required to have a sufficiently large minority 

population. For this reason, Maine and Alaska were excluded due to their relatively 

homogeneous population. In total, 7 States met the criteria and will be referred to as the 

study States. They are Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, 

Tennessee, and Washington.

Analyses were based on known and proper belt use by fatally injured outboard 

front seat passenger vehicle occupants, age 16 and above. For each State, specific preand post- periods were identified. The year of law change was excluded from the data, 

and the two calendar years prior to the change were identified as the pre-upgrade period, 

whereas the two calendar years following the law change were identified as the post-
12

upgrade period. Since not all study States changed their law in the same year, each study 

State had its own tailored pre- and post- period. Once identified, pre- and post- data were 

collapsed across the 7 study States. Overall number of fatalities, pre- and post-, were 

compared across groups to see if minorities showed a larger change in fatalities than the 

Caucasian group. Percentages of belt use before and after the law change were compared. 

Furthermore, the magnitude of the change in belt use in various racial groups was 

examined to assess the presence of a differential effect of the law on majority and 

minority groups.

The overall number of fatalities in the study States dropped by 8.1% from pre- to 

post- upgrade (Table 5), and similar decreases were observed for the major racial groups 

(race was known in more than 99% of cases). From pre- to post-, Caucasians showed a 

7.4% decrease in fatalities, the general minority group (i.e., African-Americans and other 

minorities) showed an 11.3% decrease in fatalities. The African-American subgroup 

showed a 10.1% decrease, and the Other subgroup, representing only 2% of all fatalities, 

showed a 19.9% decrease. Chi-square analyses indicated that the overall decrease in 

fatalities was significant (p<.0001), however the magnitude of the decrease did not differ 

significantly across racial/ethnic groups. That is, Caucasians and minorities showed a 

similar decrease in number of fatalities pre- to post-law change. 

Table 5. Number of Fatalities, Pre- Versus PostPre Post % Change % Total Fatalities

All Fatalities 8,342 7,668 -8.1% 100%

Caucasian 6,894 6,383 -7.4% 83%

Minority (incl. African-Am.) 1,448 1,285 -11.3% 17%

African-American 1,282 1,152 -10.1% 15%

Other 166 133 -19.9% 2%

The overall proportion of belt use in fatalities increased by 8 percentage points, 

from 34% to 42%, pre- to post-. A chi-square analysis showed this increase to be 

significant, p<.0001. Looking at changes in belt use by race also showed significant 

increases. Belt use in fatally injured Caucasian occupants increased from 35% to 44%, a 

9-percentage-point increase (p<.0001). Fatally injured minority occupants showed a 

significant increase from 30% to 35%, a 5-percentage-point increase (p< .01). When the 

minority group was divided further, fatally injured African-American occupants also 

showed an increase in belt use from 28% to 32%, pre- to post- (p=.01). The Other group 

showed a non-significant increase, from 47% pre-upgrade to 55% post-upgrade. Table 6 

shows the data by State. Caucasians showed an increase in belt use in all 7 States, 

whereas the minority group showed an increase in 5 of the 7 States. It should be noted 

that the two States that did not show an increase had a rather small number of minority 

fatalities; thus those data could be misleading.
13

Table 6. Belt Use Among Fatalities, Pre- Versus PostState Race Pre Post Pre-Post 

Change

Significance

N % N %

Delaware Caucasian 142 33.8% 156 55.8% +2.2 p<.0001

Minority 22 50.0% 15 33.3% -16.7 NS

Illinois Caucasian 1,331 39.6% 1,343 51.7% +12.1 p<.0001

Minority 187 36.4% 178 41.6% +5.2 NS

Kentucky Caucasian 1,349 33.8% 1,066 38.7% +4.9 p=.012

Minority 54 42.6% 28 35.7% -6.9 NS

Mississippi Caucasian 897 27.0% 842 36.1% +9.1 p<.001

Minority 490 20.6% 415 26.7% +6.1 p=.030

South 

Carolina

Caucasian 939 32.8% 902 38.1% +5.3 p=.017

Minority 435 26.4% 369 30.9% +4.5 NS

Tennessee Caucasian 1,488 33.5% 1,476 39.4% +6.0 p=.001

Minority 169 42.6% 190 43.2% +0.6 NS

Washington Caucasian 748 44.3% 598 63.0% +18.7 p<.0001

Minority 91 45.1% 90 52.2% +7.1 NS

Overall Caucasian 6,894 35.0% 6,383 43.9% +8.9 p<.0001

Minority 1,448 29.8% 1,285 34.5% +4.7 p=.008

The results of a binary logistic regression performed on pre/post- by 

Caucasian/minority revealed significant main effects for both variables. Post-upgrade belt 

use was significantly larger than pre-upgrade (Wald (1) = 24.27, p<.0001), and 

Caucasians had significantly higher belt use than minorities (Wald (1) = 38.72, p<.0001). 

The interaction failed to reach significance. This suggests that the law upgrade did not 

differentially affect majority and minority groups (see Figure 1). Another logistic 

regression was performed on pre/post- with race split further into Caucasian, AfricanAmerican, and Other. Results indicated that only the main effect of pre/post- was 

significant (Wald (1) = 111.09, p<.0001). 
14

Figure 1. Percentage Belted Fatalities Pre-/Post-, by Race 2000-2008

SEAT BELT CITATION DATA

Seat belt citation data were obtained from 6 of the 13 States that upgraded their 

law in the period 2000-2009. Number of seat belt citations by race was gathered and 

analyzed for the States of Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Illinois, and 

Florida. All States included seat belt citations, and some included seat belt warning 

(verbal and/or written). Where available, data on speeding citations were also collected, 

which were to be used as a point of comparison. Although we attempted to obtain 2 

years’ worth of data before and after the law upgrade, these were not always available 

and the length of the pre- and post- periods varies across States. For this reason, each 

State will be considered separately. 

Kentucky

The Kentucky Department of Public Safety (DPS) provided seat belt and speed 

citation data for the years 2004 through 2008. The State’s primary seat belt law went into 

effect on July 20, 2006. Thus there were two full years of data prior to the law and two 

full years of data after the law was in place. Data were provided for the following racial 

groups: Caucasians, African-Americans, Asian-Americans, and Natives. Totals provided 

by DPS indicated that these were mutually exclusive groups. Citation recipients whose 

race/ethnicity was unknown were excluded from the analysis. 

Seat Belt Citations

The year 2007 was the first full calendar year after the law upgrade. Table 7 

shows the number of seat belt citations issued in the period from 2004 to 2008. Using 

2004 as a baseline, the overall number of citations increased by 95% in the first year 

(2007), and 104% in the second year (2008). Caucasians had a slightly greater percentage

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Caucasian Minority African-American Other

Pre Post
15

increase in number of belt citations than did minorities (comprised of African-Americans, 

Asian-Americans and Natives). Relative to the 2004 baseline, the number of citations 

issued to Caucasians decreased by 35% in 2006 (the year of law change), followed by 

increases of 96% and 106% in 2007 and 2008, respectively; for minorities, there was a 

decrease of 33% in 2006, followed by increases of 86% in 2007 (the first full year after 

the law change) and 89% in 2008. Thus, seat belt citations practically doubled in the two 

years following the law upgrade. Caucasians and minorities showed an almost identical 

pattern of change. 

Table 7. Kentucky – Number of Seat Belt Citations by Race

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Caucasian 39,406 38,956 25,589 77,333 81,114

African-American 4,549 4,353 3,056 8,468 8,620

Asian-American 180 189 96 292 259

Native 10 23 13 43 63

Total Minority 4,739 4,565 3,165 8,803 8,942

Total 44,145 43,521 28,754 86,136 90,056

In 2004, 89% of all seat belt citations were issued to Caucasians. By 2008, the 

percentage had increased to 90% (+1 percentage point). Meanwhile, the percentage of 

citations issued to minorities went from 11% in 2004 to 10% in 2008, a 1-percentagepoint decrease. As a point of comparison, according to the 2008 Census estimates, 

Caucasians represent 90% of the population of Kentucky, compared to 10% for 

minorities. Thus, the distribution of seat belt citations across racial groups fairly 

represented the distribution of the overall population and remained stable throughout the 

period 2004-2008. Table 8 shows the distribution of seat belt citations across race for the 

entire period 2004 to 2008.

Table 8. Kentucky – Percentage of Seat Belt Citations Issued by Race

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Caucasian 89.3% 89.5% 89.0% 89.8% 90.1%

African-American 10.3% 10.0% 10.6% 9.8% 9.6%

Asian-American 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%

Native 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%

Total Minority 10.7% 10.5% 11.0% 10.2% 9.9%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Speeding Citations

The total number of speeding citations and distribution across races, for each year 

from 2004 to 2008, is shown in Table 9. There was an 11% increase in the number of 

speeding citations issued from 2004 through 2006, the year of the seat belt law upgrade. 
16

Post-law change, speeding citations declined. In 2007, they were 13% lower than in 

2004; in 2008, there were 4% fewer speeding citations than in 2004. 

The distribution of speeding citations issued to Caucasians was relatively stable 

over time, with an average of 88% of speeding citations being issued to Caucasians and 

an average of 12% issued to minorities. The only change in this pattern was in 2007, the 

first full year after the seat belt law upgrade, where 84% of speeding citations were issued 

to Caucasians and 16% were issued to minorities. Two years after the law upgrade, the 

pattern reverted to that seen pre-law change. This distribution was similar to both the 

distribution of the population of Kentucky as well as the distribution of seat belt citations 

across race (90% Caucasian; 10% Non-Caucasian). If anything, minorities may have 

been slightly overrepresented in the distribution of speeding citations. 

Table 9. Kentucky – Percentage of Speeding Citations Issued by Race

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Total Speeding Citations 251,537 256,931 278,086 219,753 242,033

Caucasian 88.2% 87.8% 87.7% 84.3% 88.3%

African-American 10.9% 11.2% 11.4% 14.5% 10.8%

Asian-American 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 1.1% 0.9%

Native 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1%

Minority 11.8% 12.2% 12.3% 15.7% 11.7%

Mississippi

The Mississippi Department of Public Safety provided seat belt and speed citation 

data for the years 2004 through 2008. The State’s primary seat belt law went into effect 

on May 27, 2006. Thus, there were two full years of data prior to the law change and two 

full years after the law was in place. Data were provided for the following racial groups: 

Caucasian, African-American, Asian-American, and Native. Date indicated that these 

were mutually exclusive groups. Citation recipients whose race/ethnicity was unknown 

were excluded from all analyses. 

Seat Belt Citations

The year 2007 was the first full calendar year after the law upgrade. Table 10 

shows the number of seat belt citations issued in the period from 2004 to 2008. There was 

an increase in seat belt citations from 2004 to 2005 (+56%), followed by a much larger 

increase from 2004 to 2006 (+ 526%). In the years following the seat belt law upgrade, 

seat belt citations increased dramatically. Indeed, there was a 1,578% increase from 2004 

to 2007, and a 1,665% increase from 2004 to 2008. Thus, the number of seat belt 

citations in the two years after the law change was essentially 15 times greater than two 

years prior to the law change and 11 times greater than the year immediately preceding 

the law change. 
17

Caucasians had a larger percentage increase in number of belt citations than did 

minorities (including African-American, Asian, and Native groups). Relative to the 2004 

baseline, the number of citations issued to Caucasians increased by 585% in 2006, 

1,752% in 2007, and 1,832% in 2008; for minorities, there was an increase of 483% in 

2006, 1,448% in 2007, and 1,640% in 2008.

Table 10. Mississippi – Number of Seat Belt Citations by Race

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Caucasian 1,005 1,711 6,881 18,610 19,420

African-American 1,312 1,926 7,742 20,626 21,664

Asian-American 0 1 2 18 21

Native 34 29 99 187 395

Minority 1,346 1,956 7,843 20,831 22,080

Total 2,351 3,667 14,724 39,441 41,500

In spite of the substantial increase in seat belt citations issued following the law 

change, the percentage of such citations issued to Caucasians and minorities were 

consistent over time, with an average of 46% of all seat belt citations issued to 

Caucasians and an average of 54% issued to minorities over the 5-year period (Table 11). 

More importantly, there was very little variation from before the law change (average 

45% for Caucasians, 55% minorities) compared to after the law change (average 47% for 

Caucasians and 53% for minorities). The 2008 Census estimates that Caucasians account 

for 61% of the population, compared to 39% for minorities. During the period 2004 to 

2008, relative to the State population, minorities were overrepresented in seat belt 

ticketing. This trend did not change after seat belt law change. 

Table 11. Mississippi – Percentage of Seat Belt Citations Issued by Race

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Caucasian 42.7% 46.7% 46.7% 47.2% 46.8%

African-American 55.8% 52.5% 52.6% 52.3% 52.2%

Asian-American 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%

Native 1.4% 0.8% 0.7% 0.5% 1.0%

Minority 57.3% 53.3% 53.3% 52.8% 53.2%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Speeding Citations

The total number of speeding citations and distribution across races, for each year 

from 2004 to 2008, is shown in Table 12. There was a 10% increase in the number of 

speeding citations issued from 2004 through 2006, the year of the seat belt law upgrade. 

Post-law change, speeding citations continued to increase in 2007 and decline slightly in 

2008. In 2007, there were 31% more speeding citations issued than in 2004; in 2008, 

there were 16% more speeding citations issued than in 2004. 
18

Table 12. Mississippi – Percentage of Speeding Citations by Race

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Total Speeding Citations 126,365 95,114 139,595 165,726 146,063

Caucasian 57.1% 56.1% 57.5% 58.7% 58.5%

African-American 42.5% 43.5% 42.0% 40.9% 41.1%

Asian-American 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

Native 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%

Minority 42.9% 43.9% 42.5% 41.3% 41.5%

The distribution of speeding citations issued was relatively stable over time, with 

an average of 58% of speeding citations being issued to Caucasians and an average of 

42% issued to minorities. As was the case with seat belt citations, the proportion of 

speeding citations issued to minorities is a bit higher than would be expected given the 

race distribution in the State’s population. This pattern was similar before and after the 

seat belt law upgrade. 

South Carolina

In South Carolina, the DPS provided seat belt and speed citation data for the years 

2003 through 2008. The State’s primary seat belt law went into effect on December 9, 

2005. Thus, there were two full years of data prior to the law and three full years of data 

after the law upgrade. The data were clustered in four racial/ethnic groups: Caucasian, 

African-American, Hispanic, and Other. Since it was not clear whether “Other” signified 

“other race” or “race not recorded,” this group (less than 1% of the sample) was

eliminated from the analysis. Totals provided by DPS indicated that these were mutually 

exclusive groups.

Seat Belt Citations

The year 2006 was the first full calendar year after the law upgrade. Table 13 

shows the number of seat belt citations issued in the period from 2003 to 2008. Using 

2003 as a baseline, seat belt citations increased by 230% in 2006 (the first full year 

following the law change), by 292% in the second year (2007), and 348% in the third 

year (2008). Caucasians had a slightly greater percentage increase in number of belt 

citations than did minorities (comprised of African-Americans and Hispanics). Relative 

to the 2003 baseline, the number of citations issued to Caucasians increased by 235% in 

2006, 294% in 2007, and 357% in 2008; for minorities, there was an increase of 222% in 

2006, 289% in 2007, and 335% in 2008. 
19

Table 13. South Carolina – Number of Seat Belt Citations by Race

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Caucasian 20,687 23,663 21,557 69,262 81,452 94,448

African-American 11,383 13,117 12,453 37,456 45,704 51,191

Hispanic 1,243 1,457 1,434 3,207 3,370 3,670

Minority 12,626 14,574 13,887 40,663 49,074 54,861

Total 33,313 38,237 35,444 109,925 130,526 149,309

In spite of the substantial increase in seat belt citations issued following the law 

change, the distribution of such citations across race was consistent over time, with an 

average of 62% of all seat belt citations issued to Caucasians and an average of 38% 

issued to minorities over the 6-year period (Table 14). More importantly, there was very 

little variation from before the law change (average 62% for Caucasians, 38% minorities) 

compared to after the law change (average 63% for Caucasians and 37% for minorities). 

The 2008 Census estimates that Whites (non-Hispanic) account for 65% of the 

population, compared to 35% for minorities or Hispanic. The distribution of seat belt 

citations across race/ethnicity is thus fairly proportional to the population distribution and 

remained relatively stable throughout the 2003- to 2008 period. 

Table 14. South Carolina – Percentage of Seat Belt Citations Issued by Race/Ethnicity

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Caucasian 62.1% 61.9% 60.8% 63.0% 62.4% 63.3%

African-Am. 34.2% 34.3% 35.1% 34.1% 35.0% 34.3%

Hispanic 3.7% 3.8% 4.0% 2.9% 2.6% 2.5%

Minority 37.9% 38.1% 39.2% 37.0% 37.6% 36.7%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Speeding Citations

The total number of speeding citations and distribution across races, for each year 

from 2003 to 2008, is shown in Table 15. There was a 13% decline in the number of 

speeding citations issued from 2003 through 2005 (the year prior to the seat belt law 

upgrade); followed by a slight increase (4%) from 2005 through 2008. Thus while there 

was a slight increase in speeding citations after 2005, the overall numbers remained 

approximately 7% below the 2003 levels. 

The distribution of citations across Caucasians/minorities was very consistent 

over time, with an average of 66% of speeding citations being issued to Caucasians and 

an average of 34% issued to minorities. This distribution was similar to both the 

distribution of the population of South Carolina (65% White/non-Hispanic; 35% NonCaucasian/Hispanic) as well as the distribution of seat belt citations across race (63% 

White/non-Hispanic and 37% non-Caucasian/Hispanic in 2008). 
20

Table 15. South Carolina – Total Speeding Citations, Percentage by Race

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Total Speeding Citations 230,627 232,463 200,702 213,930 222,040 209,487

Caucasian 68.1% 67.9% 67.0% 66.1% 66.0% 65.6%

African-American 29.3% 29.5% 30.1% 30.7% 30.8% 31.1%

Hispanic 2.6% 2.6% 2.9% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2%

Minority 31.9% 32.1% 33.0% 33.9% 34.0% 34.4%

Tennessee

The Tennessee Department of Safety (DOS) provides an annual report to the 

Tennessee General Assembly by fiscal year (October through September) supplying data 

on total seat belt convictions and total seat belt citations for the Tennessee Highway 

Patrol (THP). DOS provided reports for the FY 2002-2003 through FY 2007-08. 

Tennessee implemented its primary law on July 1, 2004 thus, there were close to two full 

years of data prior to the law (21 months) and four full years of data after the law 

upgrade. Convictions and citations were provided for six racial/ethnic groups: Caucasian, 

African-American, Asian-American, Native, Hispanic, and Other. Since it was not clear 

whether “Other” signified “other race” or “race not recorded,” this group (less than 1% of 

the sample) was eliminated from the analysis. Totals provided by DOS indicated that 

these were mutually exclusive groups.

Seat Belt Convictions 

FY 2004-2005 was the first full fiscal year after the law upgrade. Table 16 shows 

the number of seat belt convictions issued in the period from FY 2002-03 to FY 2007-08. 

The overall number of convictions declined by 8% between FY 2002-03 and FY 2003-

04. The first full fiscal year after the law change showed a dramatic increase in the 

number of seat belt convictions. Using 2002-03 as a baseline, seat belt convictions 

increased by 44% in FY 2004-05 (the first full fiscal year following the law change), by 

133% in the second year (FY 2005-06), 160% in the third year (FY 2006-07), and 209% 

in the fourth year (FY 2007-08).

Table 16. Tennessee – Number of Seat Belt Convictions by Race/Ethnicity

FY 

2002-03

FY 

2003-04

FY 

2004-05

FY 

2005-06

FY 

2006-07

FY 

2007-08

Caucasian 18,563 16,707 25,908 45,132 45,580 54,004

Asian-Am. 85 83 157 78 265 431

African-Am. 2,802 2,802 4,651 4,473 9,563 11,750

Native 44 50 58 16 97 137

Hispanic 551 572 1,021 1,601 1,810 1,830

Minority 3,482 3,507 5,887 6,168 11,735 14,148

Total 22,045 20,214 31,795 51,300 57,315 68,152
21

Increases in the number of convictions among Caucasians and minorities 

(comprising African and Asian-Americans, Natives and Hispanics) were +40% and 

+69%, respectively in the first full FY after implementation of the law. In the second year 

(FY 2005-06), Caucasians showed a 143% increase in convictions versus a 77% increase 

in minorities (relative to FY 2002-03). Thus, in the two years immediately following the 

law change, the increases were greater among Caucasians than among minorities. In the 

third and fourth year post-law, however, the increase in convictions was greater among 

minorities (+237% in FY 2006-07, +306% in FY 2007-08) than among Caucasians 

(+146% in FY 2006-07, +191% in FY 2007-08).

The percentage of convictions among Caucasians averaged 83% before the law, 

was 81% in the first full year post-law and increased to a high of 88% in FY 2005-06. In 

the third and fourth year after the law, the proportion of convicted people who were 

Caucasians decreased to 80% and 79% in FY 2006-07 and FY 2007-08, respectively. 

Accordingly, the proportion of convictions among minorities rose from an average of 

17% pre-law, to an average of 21% in the third and fourth year after the law was 

implemented (Table 17).The 2008 Census estimates that Whites (non-Hispanic) account 

for 77% of the population, compared to 33% for non-Caucasians/Hispanics. Thus, 

although the increase in convictions among minorities in the most recent years may 

appear troublesome, the distribution of seat belt convictions across race/ethnicity is fairly 

proportional to the population distribution. 

Table 17. Tennessee– Percentage of Seat Belt Convictions by Race/Ethnicity

FY 

2002-03

FY 

2003-04

FY 

2004-05

FY 

2005-06

FY 

2006-07

FY 

2007-08

Caucasian 84.2% 82.7% 81.5% 88.0% 79.5% 79.2%

Asian-Am. 0.4% 0.4% 0.5% 0.2% 0.5% 0.6%

African-Am. 12.7% 13.9% 14.6% 8.7% 16.7% 17.2%

Native 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2%

Hispanic 2.5% 2.8% 3.2% 3.1% 3.2% 2.7%

Minority 15.8% 17.3% 18.5% 12.0% 20.5% 20.8%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

THP Citations

A control measure such as speed citations was not available for Tennessee. 

Instead, seat belt citations issued by the THP provide a second index of enforcement 

activity. Table 18 shows the number of seat belt citations issued by THP in the period 

from FY 2002-03 to FY 2007-08. The overall number of citations declined by 3% 

between FY 2002-03 and FY 2003-04. The first full fiscal year after the law change 

showed a large increase in the number of THP seat belt citations. Using 2002-03 as a 

baseline, citations increased by 62% in FY 2004-05, by 73% in the second year (FY 

2005-06), 47% in the third year (FY 2006-07), and 19% in the fourth year (FY 2007-08).

As Table 18 indicates, increases in the number of THP citations among Caucasians and 

minorities were +62% and +65%, respectively in the first full FY after implementation of 

the law. In the second year (FY 2005-06), THP citations reached a peak with Caucasians 
22

showing a 76% increase in citations versus a 56% increase in minorities (relative to FY 

2002-03). Thus, in the two years immediately following the law change, the increases 

were slightly larger among Caucasians than among minorities. In the third and fourth 

year post-law, THP citations started to decline from the peak obtained in 2005-06. The 

number of THP convictions was still above the baseline level for Caucasians (+51% in 

2006-07, +24% in 2007-08). For minorities, THP citations were only 17% higher in FY 

2006-07 and dropped 8% below the baseline in FY 2007-08. 

Table 18. Tennessee – Number of THP Seat Belt Citations by Race/Ethnicity

FY 

2002-03

FY 

2003-04

FY 

2004-05

FY 

2005-06

FY 

2006-07

FY 

2007-08

Caucasian 25,505 24,421 41,262 44,836 38,528 31,517

African-American 2,827 3,019 4,731 4,452 3,499 2,717

Asian-American 95 27 69 78 47 45

Native 9 6 15 16 11 19

Hispanic 991 985 1,644 1,577 1,029 818

Minority 3,922 4,037 6,459 6,123 4,586 3,599

Total 29,427 28,458 47,721 50,959 43,114 35,116

In FY 2002-03, 87% of all THP citations were issued to Caucasians. By FY 2007-

08, the percentage had increased to 90% (+3 percentage points). Meanwhile the 

percentage of citations issued to minorities went from 13% in FY 2002-03 to 10% in FY 

2007-08, a 3-percentage-point drop. Table 19 shows that the distribution of seat belt 

citations issued across race remained fairly stable throughout the FY 2002-03 to FY 

2007-08 period. 

Table 19. Tennessee – Percentage of THP Seat Belt Citations Issued by Race/Ethnicity

FY 

2002-03

FY 

2003-04

FY 

2004-05

FY 

2005-06

FY 

2006-07

FY 

2007-08

Caucasian 86.7% 85.8% 86.5% 88.0% 89.4% 89.8%

African-American 9.6% 10.6% 9.9% 8.7% 8.1% 7.7%

Asian-American 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1%

Native American 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%

Hispanic 3.4% 3.5% 3.4% 3.1% 2.4% 2.3%

Minorities 13.3% 14.2% 13.5% 12.0% 10.6% 10.2%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Illinois

Illinois’s primary seat belt law went into effect on July03, 2003. Following 

passage of the law, the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) was required to 

monitor seat belt citations. Such data were not tracked prior to that time, according to 
23

IDOT staff. Thus, data were only available starting in 2004, the first full calendar year 

following enactment of the law. 

IDOT provided the number of seat belt citations, verbal warnings, and written 

warnings for each year in the 2004-2008 period. The data were clustered in five 

racial/ethnic groups: Caucasians, African-Americans, Hispanics, Asian/Pacific Islander,

and Natives. The data indicate that the groups were mutually exclusive.

Seat Belt Citations

Since it is the first full calendar year for which data are available, the number of 

citations issued in 2004 will be used as a baseline for all analyses (see Table 20 for 

number of seat belt citations issued). Thus, relative to the 2004 baseline, the overall 

number of citations increased by 14% in 2005, 6% in 2006, and then decreased in 2007 

(-7%) and 2008 (-1%). The number of citations issued to Caucasians increased by 12% in 

2005, 21% in 2006, 6% in 2007 and 13% in 2008. For minorities (comprising AfricanAmerican, Asian-American, Native, and Hispanic), the number of issued citations 

increased by 17% in 2005, and then decreased in 2006 (-20%), 2007 (-33%), and 2008 

(-26%). 

Table 20. Illinois – Number of Seat Belt Citations by Race

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Caucasian 59,449 66,850 71,823 63,276 67,312

African-American 19,334 22,230 13,226 12,098 13,663

Asian/Pacific Islander 1,690 2,122 2,233 1,629 1,749

Native 212 218 128 186 213

Hispanic 11,306 13,591 10,362 7,914 8,374

Minority 32,542 38,161 25,949 21,827 23,999

Total 91,991 105,011 97,772 85,103 91,311

In 2004, 65% of all seat belt citations were issued to Caucasians. By 2008, the 

percentage had increased to 74% (+9 percentage points). Meanwhile, the percentage of 

citations issued to minorities declined from 35% in 2004 to 26% in 2008, a ninepercentage-point decrease. As a point of comparison, according to the 2008 Census 

estimates, Whites (non-Hispanic) represented 65% of the population of Illinois, compared 

to 35% for minorities or Hispanics. Starting in 2006, relative to the State population, 

Whites (non-Hispanic) were overrepresented in seat belt ticketing. 

Other Traffic Actions

Speeding data were also requested. While data specific to speeding were not 

available, a summary of the total traffic citations and warnings (combined) was provided 

by IDOT. These data allowed for computation of seat belt versus non-seat belt actions, 
24

which were used for comparison. Note that the seat belt data may differ from the earlier 

discussion on seat belt citations since traffic actions include both citations and warnings. 

Table 21 indicates that the percentage of seat belt-related actions issued to 

Caucasians increased over time, from 61% in 2004 to 74% in 2008. Conversely, 

proportion of seat belt-related actions issued to minorities showed a decline over time, 

from 39% in 2004 to 27% in 2008. Distribution of non-seat belt related actions remained

stable over time, with an average of 68% of actions issued to Caucasians, and 32% issued 

to minorities. 

Table 21. Illinois – Total Traffic Actions, Percentage by Race

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Total Seat Belt Actions 118,619 126,274 114,388 98,811 105,896

Caucasian 61.4% 62.7% 73.4% 74.0% 73.5%

African-American 23.6% 22.4% 13.7% 14.6% 15.3%

Asian/Pacific Islander 2.1% 1.9% 2.2% 1.9% 1.9%

Native 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2%

Hispanic 12.8% 12.8% 10.5% 9.2% 9.1%

Minority 38.6% 37.3% 26.6% 26.0% 26.5%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Total Non-Seat Belt Actions

 

2,375,068 

 

2,363,052 

 

2,389,568 

 

2,351,537 

 

2,411,715 

Caucasian 67.5% 68.5% 67.7% 68.4% 67.6%

African-American 17.2% 16.6% 17.3% 17.2% 17.5%

Asian/Pacific Islander 2.9% 2.9% 3.0% 2.9% 3.0%

Native 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%

Hispanic 12.1% 11.8% 11.8% 11.2% 11.7%

Minorities 32.5% 31.5% 32.3% 31.6% 32.4%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Florida

Seat belt citation data were obtained from Florida’s Uniform Citation System. 

Florida’s primary seat belt law went into effect on June 30, 2009. At the time this report 

was produced, 2009 data were not yet available, thus only pre-law change data (2006 to

2008) are presented. Number of seat belt citations was highest in 2007, which showed a 

16% increase compared to the previous year. In 2008, the number of citations was 3% 

higher than in 2006. Data were obtained for Caucasians, African-Americans, AsianAmericans, Natives, and Hispanics. All groups were mutually exclusive. Caucasians 

received 63% of citations in 2006, compared to 58% and 61% in 2007 and 2008, 

respectively. African-Americans were issued 21% of citations in each of 2006, 2007, and 

2009. Proportion of seat belt citations issued to Hispanics increased by 5 percentage 
25

points between 2006 and 2007; the 2008 number was 2 percentage points higher than in 

2006. Distribution of seat belt citations across race/ethnicity is shown in Table 22. 

Table 22. Florida – Percentage of Seat Belt Citations Issued by Race/Ethnicity

2006 2007 2008

Total 270,175 313,146 278,972

Caucasian 63.0% 57.9% 60.7%

African-American 21.3% 21.8% 21.4%

Asian-American 0.5% 0.6% 0.4%

Native 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

Hispanic 15.1% 19.6% 17.4%

Minority 37.0% 42.1% 39.3%

Citations Summary

Four States provided seat belt citation data covering the period before and after 

the law upgrade. The overall distribution of citations across racial/ethnic groups is 

presented in Table 23. During the pre-period, an average of 11% of citations were issued

to minorities in Kentucky, compared to an average of 10% after the law upgrade. In 

Mississippi, minorities were issued 55% of citations on average in the two years before 

the law; this declined to 53% after implementation of the primary seat belt law. In South 

Carolina, minorities received an average of 38% of seat belt citations before the law and 

37.5% of citations after the law. The pattern in Tennessee was also stable with minorities 

being issued 13% of citations before the law change, and an average of 13% after the law 

change. Thus seat belt citation data reveal no real change in pattern of citations across 

races before and after the law change. Similar data looking at distribution of speeding 

citations by race can be consulted in Table 24. 

Table 23. Percentage Seat Belt Citations by Race

State Race Pre Post

2 years 1 year 1 year 2 years

Kentucky Caucasian 89% 90% 90% 90%

Minority 11% 10% 10% 10%

Mississippi Caucasian 43% 47% 47% 47%

Minority 57% 53% 53% 53%

South Carolina Caucasian 62% 62% 63% 62%

Minority 38% 38% 37% 38%

Tennessee Caucasian n/a 87% 86% 88%

Minority n/a 13% 14% 12%
26

Table 24. Percentage Speeding Citations by Race

State Race Pre Post

2 years 1 year 1 year 2 years

Kentucky Caucasian 88% 88% 84% 88%

Minority 12% 12% 16% 12%

Mississippi Caucasian 57% 56% 59% 59%

Minority 43% 44% 41% 41%

South Carolina Caucasian 68% 68% 66% 66%

Minority 32% 32% 34% 34%

Tennessee Caucasian n/a n/a n/a n/a

Minority n/a n/a n/a n/a

CRASH-RELATED INJURY DATA

The 7 study States were contacted in order to obtain hospital discharge data for 

each State’s pre- and post-law change period. Data from 3 of these States were obtained: 

Kentucky; South Carolina; and Washington. Injuries to occupants of motor vehicles 

resulting from motor vehicle crashes were selected using external cause of injury codes 

(“E codes”). These E codes are diagnosis codes used to identify the source of injuries 

(e.g., falls, motor vehicle crashes). 

Four years of data were obtained from each State: the two years prior to law 

change, and the two years following the law change (the year of law change was 

excluded). Thus, two years of data were used in Washington for the pre- period (2000-

2001) and the post-law-change period (2003-2004). In Kentucky, the pre-law years were 

2004 and 2005, and the post-law years were 2007 and 2008. In South Carolina, the prelaw years were 2003 and 2004, and the post-law years were 2006 and 2007.

Ideally, the race of each patient would have been indicated and used to assess any 

changes in rate of injuries by race from pre- to post-law upgrade. Unfortunately, such 

data was only available for South Carolina. In Washington and Kentucky, ZIP codes 

were used as a proxy to race. Race distribution in a given ZIP code (based on 2000 

Census data) was used to approximate race distribution in patients admitted from that ZIP

code. For instance, if a ZIP code had a high population of African-Americans, it was 

assumed that a comparable proportion of the patients admitted from that same ZIP code 

would be African-American. If there is a differential impact of the primary law upgrade 

across races, patients from predominately Caucasian areas (as determined by ZIP codes) 

should show a different pre-to-post- change than patients from less predominately 

Caucasian areas. Actual race was used to explore for differential effects of the law 

change across race in South Carolina.

Kentucky

Kentucky had relatively few counties with a substantial non-Caucasian 

population. As such the comparison was made between ZIP codes where at least 25% of 

the population was African-American and those ZIP codes where the population was less 
27

than 25% African-American. Even with this very liberal categorization, only 20 of the 

768 ZIP codes in Kentucky were classified as “highly” African-American. 

In the pre-law upgrade period, there were 5,923 admissions from the high 

Caucasian ZIP codes and 337 from the high African-American ZIP codes (i.e., 94.6% of 

admissions were from high Caucasian ZIP codes). In the post-law period, there were 

4,683 admissions from the high Caucasian areas and 250 admissions from the high 

African-American ZIP code (94.9% of admissions came from ZIP codes with a high 

White population percentage). From pre- to post-, there was a 21% drop in admissions 

from the high Caucasian ZIP codes and a 26% drop in admissions from the high AfricanAmerican ZIP codes. This difference in the decreases was not significant (χ

2 = 0.46, p > 

.05).

Washington

Washington State had few ZIP codes with a high percentage of African-American 

residents. As such the analysis was limited to higher and lower Hispanic ZIP codes. In 

Washington State, ZIP codes with a population greater than 50% Hispanic were 

categorized as high Hispanic; those ZIP codes with a population of 50% or less Hispanic 

population were labeled as low Hispanic (i.e., high Caucasian) areas. This resulted in 17 

of the 569 ZIP codes in the State being high Hispanic.

In the pre- law upgrade period, there were 5,454 admissions from high Caucasian 

ZIP codes and 202 from high Hispanic ZIP codes (96.4% high White). In the post period, 

there were 4,704 admissions from the high Caucasian ZIP codes and 150 from the high 

Hispanic ZIP codes (96.9% high Caucasian). There was a 14% drop in admission from 

the high Caucasian ZIP codes and a 26% drop in admission from the Hispanic ZIP codes. 

This difference was not significant (χ

2 = 1.87, p > 0.05).

South Carolina

In South Carolina, where actual race was known, there were 4,833 Caucasian 

admissions and 2,075 African-American admissions in the 2 years prior to law change. 

In the two years post-law change there were 4,164 Caucasian admissions and 1,890 

African-American admissions. The remaining races (approximately 6% of the preadmission and 7% of the post- admissions) were excluded from this analysis. Thus, for 

the included data, 70% were Caucasian in the pre- years and 69% Caucasian in the postyears. There was a 14% decrease in Caucasian admissions from pre- to post-law change 

and a 9% decrease in admissions in African-American admissions. The difference in 

these decreases was not significant (χ

2

= 2.12, p > 0.05).
28

Conclusion

In both States where ZIP codes were used as a proxy for actual race there was a greater 

decrease, albeit non-significant, in the minority admissions than in the Caucasian 

admissions. In South Carolina, where the actual race was known, there was also a 

decrease in admissions from pre- to post-law change. The decrease was lower among 

African-Americans than Caucasian patients, but this difference between races was not 

significant. 

NEWS REPORTS

The search covered a two-year period prior to the implementation of the law. Two 

search engines were used, LexisNexis and Google News. The search used the keywords 

belt (or seatbelt) law, along with race, racial, or minority. Close to 200 news articles 

were collected from 6 States: Arkansas, Florida, Minnesota, and Wisconsin – all of which 

upgraded in 2009- as well as Maine and Alaska, which upgraded in 2007 and 2006, 

respectively. Maine and Alaska provided different views on the primary law debate given 

their relatively small proportion of minorities. 

Each article was read and coded by two independent raters. Raters coded for 

nature of the article (news or opinion), content (e.g., safety benefits, legislative process, 

racial profiling), opinions covered (e.g., legislators, civil rights advocates, safety 

advocates), and overall point of view. A sample of the coding sheet is provided in 

Appendix B. Analyses were targeted on whether or not racial profiling was mentioned 

(yes/no) and overall point of view (favorable/unfavorable/both favorable and 

unfavorable/neutral).

Inter-Rater Reliability

Inter-rater reliability analyses were performed using the kappa statistics. Analyses 

were conducted on three elements: nature of the article as news or opinion, mention of 

racial profiling, and overall point of view. In all cases, inter-rater reliability was highly 

significant and substantial. 

Inter-rater reliability regarding nature of the article was K=0.97, p<.0001. Raters 

also agreed strongly on whether or not racial profiling was mentioned, K=0.99, p<.0001. 

Finally, point of view also showed high inter-rater reliability, with kappa=0.72, p<.0001. 

On items where the two original coders disagreed, a third coder was introduced as a tiebreaker. The data presented in the following section were thus based on 100% agreement. 

Coding

The majority of articles collected were judged to be news reports (79%) and about 

one fifth (21%) were of an editorial nature. Racial profiling was mentioned in 43.5% of 

articles (56.5% made no mention of it). Approximately one third of news reports 

presented arguments favorable to the primary seat belt law (34%), 8% presented 
29

arguments unfavorable to the primary law upgrade, 35% reported a balanced view (i.e., 

judged to present both favorable and unfavorable arguments), and 24% were neutral. 

The distribution of point of view varied greatly between articles that did mention 

racial profiling and those that did not. For instance, 60% of articles that mentioned racial 

profiling were considered to be presenting arguments both favorable and unfavorable to 

the primary seat belt law compared to only 15% of articles that did not mention profiling. 

Furthermore, articles that did not mention racial profiling were considered favorable to 

the primary law 46% of the time, compared to just 18% for those that did mention racial 

profiling. A chi-square analysis indicated that distribution of point of view was 

significantly different between articles mentioned racial profiling and those that did not 

(χ2=41.60, p<.0001). Table 25 shows the full distribution of responses. 

Table 25. Percentage of Point of View by Racial Profiling

Point of View Racial Profiling Mentioned Overall

Yes (N=80) No (N=104) (N=184)

Favorable 17.5% (N=14) 46.2% (N=48) 33.7% (N=62)

Unfavorable 7.5% (N=6) 7.7% (N=8) 7.6% (N=14) 

Both Favorable and 

Unfavorable 60.0% (N=48) 15.4% (N=16) 34.8% (N=64)

Neutral 15.0% (N=12) 30.8% (N=32) 23.9% (N=44)

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

There were wide variations between States in percentage of articles mentioning 

racial profiling. Coverage of this issue was especially prevalent in the States of 

Wisconsin, Florida, and Arkansas where 68.0%, 48.2%, and 47.6% of articles mentioned 

racial profiling, respectively. Racial profiling was noted in 42.9% of articles reviewed in 

Minnesota. None of the articles reviewed in Alaska and Maine made mention of the 

issue. 

Among the States, 16% to 42% of articles reported a favorable view of the seat 

belt law upgrade, 0% to 22% were viewed as unfavorable, 22% to 39% reported both 

favorable and unfavorable arguments, and 15% to 44% were considered neutral. Table 26 

shows the overall percentages of point of view by State. 

Table 26. News Reports: Point of View by State

Number of 

Articles Favorable Unfavorable

Both 

Favorable and 

Unfavorable Neutral

Alaska 9 33% 22% 22% 22%

Arkansas 21 33% 5% 29% 33%

Florida 85 42% 5% 38% 15%

Maine 16 25% 0% 31% 44%

Minnesota 28 29% 11% 39% 21%

Wisconsin 25 16% 16% 32% 36%

Total 184 34% 8% 35% 24%
30

IV. DISCUSSION

Earlier research on conversion of seat belt laws to primary enforcement found that 

Minorities (in most cases African-Americans) perceive stricter enforcement than 

Caucasians and are more likely to believe they will get a ticket if unbelted. The earlier 

data show, however, that after the change, the percentage of tickets for nonuse of seat 

belts received by minorities stays the same, or decreases. Thus there is no evidence for 

differential enforcement of a primary law, as compared to a secondary law. One possible 

explanation for the dip in enforcement experience for minorities is that they are more 

likely to increase their belt use upon the shift to primary. There is some evidence that this 

occurs, but it is based on self-reports and scattered observational data. Prior data indicate 

that seat belt use by African-Americans is lower than for Caucasians in secondary States

(NHTSA, 2000; Ellis et al, 2000).. 

The present study has an advantage over earlier work in that it is based on a 

greater number of States. The States are located in various regions of the country 

providing a broad reflection of experience with primary laws in the United States. Since 

these States have recently changed to primary, they also reflect current practice. 

The present study also broadens and extends earlier work. Analyses were based 

on seat belt use among fatally injured front seat occupants, which is available before and 

after the change to primary in all States. This belt use measure is closely related to 

observed seat belt use in potentially fatal crashes, so it is an important indicator. 

Moreover, observational studies of belt use by race/ethnicity have an unknown error rate 

in classifying individuals by means of skin color. The present study also attempted to 

break new ground in using hospital discharge data to make comparisons of changes in 

injury rates by race/ethnicity on the conversion to primary. Unfortunately, only three 

States could be included in these analyses.

The results showed clearly the advantages of primary belt laws. Seat belt use in 

fatalities increased in each of the 7 States studied, with an average gain of 8 percentage 

points. Significant gains were made among Caucasians, African-Americans, and other 

minorities. However, the gains were not proportionately greater in the minority groups, 

and African-Americans had substantially lower belt use than Caucasians both when the 

laws were secondary and when they were primary. It had been anticipated that AfricanAmericans might have made greater gains than Caucasians. However, this was not the 

case in the present analyses. It should be noted that belt use in fatalities has been 

increasing nationwide over the same period, thus it is possible that the increases noted in 

this report were part of a larger trend. 

The highest use of any group was in the “Other Minorities” class, which includes 

several subgroups that could not be separately identified. Belt use also increased in this 

group with the change to primary. 
31

The information on changes in hospital admissions was obtainable from fewer 

States, but it also showed the advantage of primary laws. In all three States there were 

sharp drops in admissions for motor vehicle injuries after the switch to primary. AfricanAmericans were the dominant minority in two of these States, Hispanics in the other. 

Given that there were not differential changes in belt use by race/ethnicity, differential 

changes in hospital admissions would not be expected. There were decreases in hospital 

admissions for all groups. A limitation of this analysis is that actual race was only 

available in one State. Using ZIP code as a proxy for race may be misleading since race 

distribution was based on the 2000 Census, and race distribution could have changed in 

the last 10 years. 

The numbers of citations for nonuse of seat belts increased substantially in every 

State that switched to primary, and increases occurred in all groups. However, the 

percentage of citations received by each group changed very little. Speeding citations, a 

control series, also showed little change in the proportions cited. Most of the data 

involved comparisons of Whites and African-Americans, although some States had a 

code for Hispanics. Both for African-Americans and Hispanics, their share of citations 

remained about the same before and after the conversion to primary enforcement. 

State laws were mostly silent on the subject of differential enforcement. A few of 

the laws spelled out specific guidelines for enforcement, generally indicating criteria for 

making stops or what could or could not be done once the stop was made. Only the 

Florida law called for the establishment of departmental plans designed to prohibit racial 

profiling practices. 

Most of the news articles were favorable about primary laws. Many of the articles 

mentioned racial profiling, but of those that did, less than 10% were unfavorable toward 

primary enforcement.

Primary laws were associated with gains in belt use in all groups, compared to 

secondary laws. Conversion to primary laws is clearly a forward step in improving injury 

protection for all drivers. 
32

V. REFERENCES

Benjamin, J. M., Price, G. N., & Reinfurt, D. (1996). Race and seat belts in North 

Carolina. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research 

Board, 1560, 1-7.

Cammisa, M. X., Williams, A. F., & Ferguson, S. A. (2000). Self-reported belt use in 

four countries: A telephone survey. Traffic Injury Prevention, 2, 103-110.

Campbell, B. J. (1988). The association between enforcement and seatbelt use. Journal of 

Safety Research, 19, 159-163.

Dinh-Zarr, T. B., Sleet, D. A., Shults, R. A., Zaza, S., Elder, R. W., Nichols, J. L., ... the 

Task Force on Community Preventive Services. (2001). Reviews of evidence regarding 

interventions to increase the use of safety belts. American Journal of Preventive 

Medicine, 21, 48-65.

Ellis, H. M., Nelson, B., Cosby, O., Morgan, L., Haliburton, W., & Dew, P. (2000). 

Achieving a credible health and safety approach to increasing seat belt use among 

African-Americans. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 11, 144-50.

Farmer, C. M., & Williams, A. F. (2005). Effect of fatality risk on changing from 

secondary to primary enforcement. Journal of Safety Research, 36, 189-194.

Glassbrenner, D. (2003, March). Safety Belt Use in 2002—Demographic Characteristics. 

(DOT HS 809 557) Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

Available at www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/809-557.PDF.

Haseltine, P. (2001). Seat Belt Use in Motor Vehicles: The U.S Experience. 2001 Seat 

Belt Summit, Orlando, FL.

Hedlund, J., Gilbert, S. H., Ledingham, K. A., & Preusser, D. F. (2008). How States 

Achieve High Seat Belt Use Rates. (Final Report. DOT HS 810 962). Washington, DC:

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Available at wwwnrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810962.PDF.

NHTSA. (2000). Observed Safety Belt Use From December 1999 and June 2000. 

MiniNOPUS. (Research Note). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration. Available at www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/00025.PDF.

NHTSA. (2008, January). Strengthening Seat Belt Use Laws. (DOT HS 810 890W), 

Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Available at

www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Communication%20&%20Consumer%20Information/Arti

cles/Associated%20Files/810890.pdf.
33

Nichols, J. L. (2005, January). Commentary on “Minorities and Primary Versus 

Secondary Belt Use Enforcement” In: Implementing Impaired Driving Countermeasures: 

Putting Research Into Action. Transportation Research Circular, Number E-C072. 

Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. Available at 

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/circulars/ec072.pdf.

Nichols, J. L. & Ledingham, K. A. (2008). The Impact of Legislation, Enforcement, and 

Sanctions on Safety Belt Use. (NCHRP Report 601). Washington, DC: Transportation 

Research Board. Available at 

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_601.pdf.

Preusser, D. F., Williams, A. F., & Lund, A. K. (1991). Characteristics of belted and 

unbelted drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 23, 475-482.

Preusser, D. F., & Preusser, C. W. (1997, September). Evaluation of Louisiana’s Safety 

Belt Law Change to Primary Enforcement. (Final Report. DOT HS 808 620). 

Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Available at 

http://isddc.dot.gov/OLPFiles/NHTSA/009435.pdf.

Reinfurt. D. W. (2000). Memo to the Director of the Governor’s Highway Safety 

Program. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research 

Center.

Solomon, M. G., Preusser, D. F., & Nissen, W. J. (2001, March). Evaluation of 

Maryland, Oklahoma, and the District of Columbia's Seat Belt Law Change to Primary 

Enforcement. (Final Report. DOT HS 809 213). Washington, DC: National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration. Available at 

www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/enforce/evaluationlaw.pdf.

Tison, J., Williams, A. F., & Chaudhary, N. K. (2010, July). Daytime and Nighttime Seat 

Belt Use by Fatally Injured Passenger Vehicle Occupants. (Final Report. DOT HS 811 

281). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Available at 

http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/33000/33400/33484/Day_vs_Night_Final_PDF.pdf.

Ulmer, R. G., Preusser, C. W., & Preusser, D. F. (1994). Evaluation of California’s 

Safety Belt Law Change From Secondary to Primary Enforcement. (Final Report. DOT 

HS 808 205). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Ulmer, R. G., Preusser, C. W., & Preusser, D. F. (under review). Evaluation of Georgia's 

Safety Belt Law Change From Secondary to Primary Enforcement. Final Report. 

Contract Number DTNH22-94-D-05044. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration. 

Wells, J. K., Williams, A. F., & Farmer, C. M. (2002). Seat Belt Use Among AfricanAmericans, Hispanics, and Whites. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 34, 523-529.
34

Williams, A. F., & Wells, J. K. (2004). The role of enforcement programs in increasing 

seat belt use. Journal of Safety Research, 35, 175-180.
35

APPENDIX A. STATES BY SEAT BELT LAW ENFORCEMENT STATUS, 1993-2009

State Date of Conversion 

Converted to Primary Alabama December 9, 1999

Alaska May 1, 2006

Arkansas June 30, 2009

California January 1, 1993

Delaware June 30, 2003

District of Columbia October 1, 1997

Florida June 30, 2009

Georgia July 1, 1996

Illinois July03, 2003

Indiana July 1, 1998

Kentucky July20, 2006

Louisiana September 1, 1995

Maine September20, 2007

Maryland October 1, 1997

Michigan April 1, 2000

Minnesota June 9, 2009

Mississippi May27, 2006

New Jersey May 1, 2000

Oklahoma November 1, 1997

South Carolina December 9, 2005

Tennessee July 1, 2004

Washington July 1, 2002

Wisconsin June 30, 2009

Always Secondary Arizona

Colorado

Idaho

Kansas

Massachusetts

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

North Dakota

Ohio

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Dakota

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

West Virginia

Wyoming

Always Primary Connecticut

Hawaii

Iowa

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

Oregon

Texas

No Law New Hampshire
36

APPENDIX B: LEGISLATIVE BILLS

ALASKA: The primary law came in effect on May 1, 2006, and applies to all occupants 

16 and older. It states that a person “16 years of age or older may not occupy a motor 

vehicle while being driven on a highway unless restrained by a safety belt” and a person 

“may not drive a motor vehicle on a highway unless restrained by a safety belt.” The law 

further states that “a driver may not transport a child under the age of 16 in a motor 

vehicle unless the driver has provided the required safety device and properly secured 

each child.” The maximum fine for a first offense is $15 and nonuse can decrease injuryrelated monetary awards in a lawsuit. The law states that “a peace officer may not stop or 

detain a motor vehicle to determine compliance” with the seat belt law or may not issue a 

citation for a seat belt violation “unless the peace officer has probable cause to stop or 

detain the motor vehicle.”

ARKANSAS The primary law became effective on June 30, 2009, and applies to front 

seat occupants 15 and older. The maximum fine for a first offense is $25 and nonuse 

cannot decrease injury-related monetary awards in a lawsuit. The law states that “each 

driver and front seat passenger in any motor vehicle operated on a street or highway in 

this State shall wear a properly adjusted and fastened seat belt properly secured to the 

vehicle”. Furthermore, “no motor vehicle, nor the operator or such vehicle, nor the 

passengers of such vehicle shall be stopped, inspected, or detained solely to determine 

compliance” with this law. 

DELAWARE: The primary law came into effect on June 30, 2003, and applies to all 

occupants 16 and older. The maximum fine for a first offence is $25 and nonuse cannot 

decrease injury-related monetary awards in a lawsuit. The law states that “any police 

officer is authorized to make an administrative stop for purposes of enforcing <this law> 

upon reasonable and articulable suspicion that a violation” of the law has occurred. 

FLORIDA: The primary law came into effect on June 30, 2009, and applies to front seat 

occupants 6 and older and to all occupants age of 6 to 17. The maximum fine for a first 

offense is $30 and nonuse can decrease injury-related monetary awards in a lawsuit. The 

law states that it is unlawful for any person “to operate a motor vehicle in this State

unless each passenger and the operator of the vehicle under the age of 18 years are 

restrained by a safety belt or by a child restraint device” or “to operate a motor vehicle in 

this State unless the person is restrained by a safety belt.” The law further states that “it is 

unlawful for any person 18 years of age or older to be a passenger in the front seat of a 

motor vehicle unless such person is retained by a safety belt when the vehicle is in 

motion.” Moreover, “each law enforcement agency in this State shall adopt departmental 

policies to prohibit the practice of racial profiling.”

ILLINOIS: The primary law became effective on July 03, 2003, and applies to front seat 

occupants 16 and older. When the driver is younger than 18, the law applies to all 

occupants 18 and younger. The maximum fine for a first offense is $25 and nonuse 

cannot decrease injury-related monetary awards in a lawsuit. The law states that “each 

driver and front seat passenger of a motor vehicle operated on a street or highway in this 

State shall wear a properly adjusted and fastened seat belt...”; also “each driver under the 
37

age of 18 years and each of the driver’s passengers under the age of 18 years of a motor 

vehicle operated on a street or highway in this State shall wear a properly adjusted and 

fastened seat safety belt. Each driver of a motor vehicle transporting a child 8 years of 

age or more, but less than 16 years of age, shall secure the child in a properly adjusted 

and fastened seat belt.” The law further states that a “law enforcement officer may not 

search or inspect a motor vehicle, its contents, the driver, or a passenger solely because of 

a violation of this section.” 

KENTUCKY: The primary law went into effect on July 20, 2006, and applies to all 

occupants 7 and older, and to all occupants 6 and under with a height of more than 50 

inches. The maximum fine for a first offense is $25 and nonuse cannot decrease injuryrelated monetary awards in a lawsuit. The law states that “a person shall not operate a 

motor vehicle manufactured after 1981 on the public roadways of this State unless the 

driver and all passengers are wearing a properly adjusted and fastened seat belt.”

MAINE: The primary law came into effect on September 20, 2007, and applies to all 

occupants 18 and over. The maximum fine for a first offense is $50, $125 for the second 

offense and $250 for the third and subsequent offences. Nonuse cannot decrease injuryrelated monetary awards in a lawsuit. The law states that “when a person 18 years of age 

or older is a passenger in a vehicle that is required by the United States Department of 

Transportation to be equipped with seat belts, the passenger must be properly secured in a 

seat belt.”; also the “operator of a vehicle that is required by the United States 

Department of Transportation to be equipped with seat belts must be secured in the 

operator’s seat belt.” Furthermore, a “fine imposed under this subsection may not be 

suspended by the court. A vehicle, the contents of a vehicle, the driver of or a passenger 

in a vehicle may not be inspected or searched solely because of a violation” of this law. 

MINNESOTA: The primary seat belt law came into effect on June 9, 2009, and applies to 

all occupants 8 and older and to occupants 7 and younger who are more than 57 inches. 

The maximum fine for a first offense is $25. Nonuse cannot decrease injury-related 

monetary awards in a lawsuit. The law states that a properly adjusted and fastened seat 

belt shall be worn by “the driver and passengers of a passenger vehicle, commercial 

vehicle, type III vehicle, and type III Head Start vehicle.”

MISSISSIPPI: The primary seat belt law became effective on May27, 2006, and applies 

to front seat occupants 7 and older. The maximum fine for a first offense is $25 and 

nonuse cannot decrease injury-related monetary awards in a lawsuit. The law states that 

“only the operator of the vehicle may be fined for a violation of this chapter by the 

operator or by any passenger. The maximum fine that may be imposed against the 

operator of a vehicle for a violation of this chapter by the operator or for a violation of 

this chapter by one of more passengers shall be $50 in the aggregate.” The law further 

states that “when a passenger motor vehicle is operated in forward motion on a public 

road, street or highway within this State, every front-seat passenger and every child who 

is at least four years of age but under eight years of age, regardless of the seat such child 

occupies, shall wear a properly fastened safety belt system.” 
38

SOUTH CAROLINA: The primary seat belt law went into effect on December 9, 2005,

and applies to front seat occupants 6 and older and to those 6 and older in rear seats with 

shoulder belt. The maximum fine for a first offense is $25 and nonuse cannot decrease 

injury-related monetary awards in a lawsuit. The law states that the “driver and every 

occupant of a motor vehicle, when it is being operated on the public streets and highways 

of this State, must wear a fastened safety belt.” Furthermore, “the driver is charged with 

the responsibility of requiring each occupant [17] years of age or younger to wear a 

safety belt or be secured in a child restraint system (...). However, a driver is not 

responsible for an occupant [17] years of age or younger who has a driver’s license, 

special restricted license, or beginner’s permit and who is not wearing a seat belt.” 

According to the law, a “law enforcement officer must not issue a citation to a driver or a 

passenger for a violation of this article when the stop is made in conjunction with a 

driver’s license check, safety check or registration check conducted at a checkpoint.” The 

law further states that “a vehicle, driver, or occupant in a vehicle must not be searched, 

nor may consent to search be requested by a law enforcement officer, solely because of a 

violation of this article.” Also, “a law enforcement officer must not stop a driver for a 

violation of this article except when the officer has probably cause that a violation has 

occurred based on his [sic] clear and unobstructed view of a driver or an occupant of the 

motor vehicle who is not wearing a safety belt or is not secured in a child restraint 

system.” 

TENNESSEE: The primary seat belt law became effective on July 1, 2004, and applies to 

front seat occupants 16 and older. The maximum fine for a first offense is $50 and 

nonuse cannot decrease injury-related monetary awards in a lawsuit. The law states that 

“no person shall operate a passenger motor vehicle on any highway (...) in this State

unless such person and all passengers four years of age or older are restrained by a safety 

belt at all times the vehicle is in forward motion.” Also “the provisions of this section 

shall apply only to the operators and all passengers occupying the front seat of a 

passenger motor vehicle.” Regarding fines, the law indicates that “a person charged with 

a violation of this section may, in lieu of appearance in court, submit a fine of [$10.00]

for a first violation, and [$20.00] on second and subsequent violations...” The law further 

states that “a law enforcement officer observing a violation of this section shall issue a 

citation to the violator, but shall not arrest or take into custody any person solely for a 

violation of this section.”

WASHINGTON: The primary seat belt law went into effect on July 1, 2002, and applies 

to all front seat occupants 16 and over. The maximum fine for a first offense is $124 and 

nonuse cannot decrease injury-related monetary rewards in a law suit. The law states that 

“every person [16] or older operating or riding in a motor vehicle shall wear the safety 

belt assembly in a properly adjusted and securely fastened manner.” 

WISCONSIN: The primary seat belt law went into effect on June 30, 2009, and applies to 

all occupants 8 and older. The maximum fine for a first offense is $10 and nonuse can 

decrease injury-related monetary awards in a lawsuit. The law states that if a “motor 

vehicle is required to be equipped with safety belts in this State, no person may operate 

that motor vehicle unless the person is properly restrained in a safety belt.” Also, if a 
39

“motor vehicle is required to be equipped with safety belts in this State, no person may 

operate that motor vehicle unless each passenger who is at least 8 years old and who is 

seated at a designated seating position in the front seat required ... to have a safety belt 

installed or at a designated seating position in the seats, other than the front seats, for 

which a safety belt is required to be installed may be a passenger in that motor vehicle 

unless the person is properly restrained.” The law further states that “a law enforcement 

officer may not stop or inspect a vehicle solely to determine compliance with this 

subsection (...). This paragraph does not limit the authority of a law enforcement officer 

to issue a citation for a violation of this subsection ... observed in the course of a stop or 

inspection made for other purposes, except that a law enforcement officer may not take a 

person into physical custody solely for a violation of this subsection (...).” 
40

APPENDIX C. NEWS REPORTS CODING SHEET

Item Description (used for tracking only)

Item number

State

Date published

Headline

Source

Type (News/Opinion)

Content (check all that apply)

Legislative process

Safety benefits

Economic benefits

Seat belt use rate

Enforcement campaign

Racial profiling

Civil rights

Opinions Covered (check all that apply)

Legislators

Safety advocates

Law enforcement officials

Civil rights advocates

Other

Point of View (check one)

Favorable

Unfavorable

Both favorable and unfavorable

Neutral
41
42

DOT HS 811 535 

September 2011