Belt Use Rates Among Taxicab Drivers in a Jurisdiction with License Points for Nonuse

Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 87–91, 1999 Copyright © 1999 National Safety Council and Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in the USA. All rights reserved 0022–4375/99 $–see front matter

Pergamon

PII S0022-4375(99)00002-X

Belt Use Rates Among Taxicab Drivers in a Jurisdiction with License Points for Nonuse Susan A. Ferguson, JoAnn K. Wells, Allan F. Williams, and Amy F. Feldman

In spite of mandatory seat belt use laws in most states, belt use in the United States is much lower than in other countries. Among taxicab drivers, who often are exempt from belt laws, use rates typically are lower than in the general population. Recently, the District of Columbia (D.C.) strengthened its primary seat belt law such that a driver not in compliance can be assessed a $50.00 fine and two penalty points on the driving record. This new law, which does apply to cab drivers, provided an opportunity to study the effects of a strong law among a population of drivers who could be adversely affected by the accumulation of license points on their driving records. Cab driver belt use was observed in the District of Columbia, as well as in Maryland and Virginia where cab drivers are not required to use belts. Belt use was much higher among D.C. cab drivers in the District than among drivers licensed in Maryland and Virginia. The overall use rate was 74% for D.C. cab drivers in the District, compared with 38% for Virginia cab drivers, and 20% for Maryland cab drivers in their own jurisdictions. Belt use among D.C. cab drivers also was higher in Maryland and Virginia than among drivers licensed in those jurisdictions. More research is needed to generalize these results to a wider population, but the findings suggest that fear of losing a driver’s license may provide a strong incentive to use seat belts. © 1999 National Safety Council and Elsevier Science Ltd Keywords: Driver belt use, belt use laws, license points, motor vehicle crashes, injury, fatality

Susan A. Ferguson is Vice President for Research with the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety in Arlington, VA. She holds a B.A. in Psychology and a Ph.D. in Experimental Psychology from the George Washington University. Dr. Ferguson has published papers on a variety of highway safety research topics including airbag performance, alcohol-impaired driving, and teenage driving. JoAnn K. Wells is Senior Research Analyst with the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. She holds a B.S. from Emmanuel College. Ms. Wells has published many articles concerning various aspects of seat belt and child restraint use, including seat belt use by teenagers and use of automatic seat

Summer 1999/Volume 30/Number 2

belts. Her research interests also include innovative methods and programs to reduce alcohol-impaired driving. Allan F. Williams is Senior Vice President for Research with the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. He holds a Ph.D. in Social Psychology from Harvard University. Dr. Williams has published more than 200 scientific papers in a wide variety of research areas including alcohol, drugs, and driving; seat belt use; and preventing motor vehicle deaths and injuries among teenagers and children. Amy F. Feldman is a graduate student in Psychology at the University of Chicago. She was a Research Assistant with the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety when this study was conducted.

87

INTRODUCTION Taxicab drivers are overrepresented in crashes. This is likely because they typically accumulate more miles of travel per year than other drivers and because most of their travel is in areas of high vehicle density. In Quebec, Canada in 1991, the taxi fleet corresponded to 0.2% of the total vehicle fleet but was involved in 1.1% of police-reported crashes (Maag, Vanasse, Dionne, & Laberge-Nadeau, 1994). In the United States during 1992–95, fifty cab drivers were killed in motor-vehicle crashes and 46,673 received nonfatal injuries; 42 taxicab passengers were fatally injured in crashes and 27,914 received nonfatal injuries (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 1997a,b). One factor affecting the incidence of injuries to taxicab occupants is their low rate of seat belt use. Many taxicab drivers do not use seat belts, and some say this is because they frequently get in and out of their vehicles. Taxicab passengers, who usually sit in the rear seats, also use seat belts infrequently, reflecting the low usage rates of rear-seat passengers in private vehicles; additional factors include lack of familiarity with the belt system, belt inaccessibility (Welkon & Reisinger, 1977), and the fact that most trips are of brief duration. Although 49 states and the District of Columbia (D.C.) have seat belt use laws, taxicab drivers are required to use belts in 37 states, and belts are required for rear-seated taxicab adult passengers in only eight states. Even though seat belt use laws are in effect in most states, the rate of belt use in the United States is much lower than in other countries. A national probability survey conducted in 1996 found an overall front-seat belt use rate of 61% (NHTSA, 1997c) compared with use rates of 90% or higher in countries such as Australia, Canada, Germany, and Great Britain (American Coalition for Traffic Safety and NHTSA, 1991; Hagenzeiker, 1991; Transport Canada, 1994). Studies have shown that the key to high belt use rates is strong laws and enforcement of these laws (Hagenzeiker, 1991; Jonah, Dawson, & Smith, 1982; Jonah & Grant, 1985; Lund, Stuster, & Fleming, 1989; Williams, Reinfurt, & Wells, 1996). All seat belt laws in other countries allow primary enforcement; that is, citations can be issued for belt law violations alone. Some countries also have high fines or impose driver’s license points for nonuse. In the United States, most states (34) have secondary laws, whereby citations can be issued for nonuse of belts only 88

when another traffic infraction such as speeding has occurred. Use rates in these secondary states are, on average, about 15 percentage points lower than in primary states (NHTSA, 1997d). In Canada, the combination of intensive belt law enforcement and publicity aimed at increasing public awareness of this enforcement has been credited with increasing belt use to more than 90% (Dussault, 1990; Landry, 1991). However, even with intensive enforcement efforts, use rates of 90% or higher have not been achieved in the United States. An ambitious fiveyear statewide enforcement effort, launched in 1993 and still underway in North Carolina, has been successful in increasing driver use rates from 64% to 84%. But those who continue not to use belts even after such strong enforcement efforts are a difficult group to reach. They are more likely to be male, to be younger, to have fewer years of formal education, to have an arrest record, and to drive older cars (Preusser, Williams, & Lund, 1991; Reinfurt, Williams, Wells, & Rodgman, 1996). Drivers who were interviewed after being cited for violating seat belt laws in North Carolina said their belt usage increased after the citations, but among those who said they continued not to buckle up, driver’s license points would appear to provide strong motivation for belt use (Reinfurt et al., 1996). Effective October 1997 in the District of Columbia, a driver not in compliance with the District’s primary use law is assessed a $50.00 fine and two penalty points (the law was enacted in April 1997, and during the following 6-month period only warnings were given). Arkansas is the only other jurisdiction in which a driver not in compliance with this state’s secondary use law is assessed penalty points. Unlike many U.S. states and many other countries where cab drivers are exempt, D.C. law also requires cab drivers and their passengers to be belted. This new law provides an opportunity to study the effects of a primary law with strong penalties among a population of drivers who could be adversely affected by the accumulation of license points on their driving records, that is, taxicab drivers. In October 1997, about 50 D.C. cab drivers were interviewed informally at National Airport in Virginia. They were asked whether they were aware of the new law and what they thought of its provisions. Drivers indicated a very high awareness of the law and heightened concern about the possibility of losing their licenses if they did not obey the law. In the present study, taxicab driver belt use was Journal of Safety Research

observed in the District of Columbia and in the two bordering states, Maryland and Virginia. In Maryland, nonuse of seat belts is a primary offense, whereas in Virginia it is secondary. However, neither state requires taxicab drivers to be belted.

METHODS Observers were located at signalized intersections at three sites in both Maryland and Virginia and at two sites in the District of Columbia during AprilMay 1998. They noted cab driver belt use and the jurisdiction of the cab by license plate. Belt use was counted only if shoulder belts were being properly used. Some drivers, seen to be holding their shoulder belts across their bodies so as to appear belted, were counted as not belted. Sites were chosen that were likely to have a high volume of cabs passing by. Two sites in both Maryland and Virginia were located in areas close to the District. Because of concerns that use rates might be elevated among cab drivers who might be about to drive into the District, two additional sites (Baltimore and Richmond) were chosen farther away. An observer was stationed at each site for three hours on a weekday. Observers noted driver belt use predominantly for drivers in their home jurisdictions, but belt use by cab drivers from all three jurisdictions was noted if they passed the observer. However, very few cab drivers were seen outside their jurisdictions. A total of 520 Maryland cab drivers were observed in Maryland, 627 Virginia cab drivers were observed in Virginia, and 588 D.C. cab drivers were observed in the District.

lumbia, Maryland, and Virginia by the jurisdiction in which they were observed. Cab driver belt use rates were much higher in the District than in the other two jurisdictions. The overall use rate was 74% for D.C. cab drivers in the District compared with 38% for Virginia cab drivers in Virginia and 20% for Maryland cab drivers in Maryland (x2 5 338.9, df 5 2, p , 0.0001). D.C. cab drivers also were observed more often using their belts in Maryland (x2 5 41.7, df 5 1, p , 0.001) and Virginia (x2 5 51.7, df 5 1, p , 0.001) than drivers licensed in those jurisdictions. Use rates for D.C. cab drivers were 74% in the District, 76% in Maryland, and 64% in Virginia. There also were large variations in belt use rates by site for drivers in their home jurisdictions in Maryland and Virginia, but not in the District (Table 2). Belt use rates typically were higher for Virginia and Maryland cab drivers at sites closer to the District where there was a higher probability that they would be driving into the District. For example, about 50% of Maryland cab drivers were using their belts in both Virginia and Maryland at sites close to the District, compared with 8–17% at other Maryland sites.

DISCUSSION Cab drivers licensed in the District of Columbia, where the primary seat belt law applies to them, are much more likely than cab drivers from neighboring jurisdictions to use seat belts, even when driving outside the District. As a result, the Table 2. Belt Use Rates of Taxicab Drivers by Individual Site

RESULTS Table 1 reports belt use rates for cab drivers whose taxis were licensed in the District of CoTable 1. Belt Use Rates of Taxicab Drivers by State in Which Observed Site DC Taxicab

%

N

MD %

N

VA %

N

District of Columbia 74 588 76 25 64 264 Maryland —a —a 20 520 49 59 Virginia —a —a —a —a 38 627 aSample

size , 15.

Summer 1999/Volume 30/Number 2

Belted

District of Columbia Cab Drivers 18th and K M Street Maryland Cab Drivers Wisconsin and Old Georgetown BWI Airport Downtown Baltimore Virginia Cab Drivers National Airport Rosslyn Richmond aIncludes

%

N

73 74

295 293a

50 17 8

100 242 178

42 45 12

340 186 101

5 unknowns at M Street.

89

use rate for D.C. cab drivers compares very favorably with average use rates around the nation, where about 65% of passenger car drivers were belted in the most recent 1996 survey (NHTSA, 1997c). Moreover, unlike other cab drivers in their home jurisdictions, D.C. cab drivers in the District use belts as often as the general population in this jurisdiction. The most recent survey done in June 1997, two to three months after the law was enacted but before license points were formally assessed, found use rates of about 66% for drivers in the District compared with about 74% for D.C. cab drivers in this study. There is no direct evidence that the higher use rate for cab drivers is the result of the license points, but drivers may lose their licenses if cited multiple times for belt violations, and cab drivers have much to lose. By comparison, use rates are much lower among cab drivers in Maryland and Virginia, where the seat belt laws do not apply to them, than among the general populations in these states. The statewide use rate in Maryland in 1997 was about 71% compared with cab driver use rates of 8–50% in this study. Similarly, belt use was about 67% for all drivers in Virginia in 1997 but ranged from 12% to 45% for cab drivers. There also is evidence from this study that the District’s belt law may be providing an incentive to drivers from other jurisdictions to use their belts. Use rates were much higher among Virginia and Maryland cab drivers at sites close to the District than at other sites in these states. This may be because of interjurisdictional agreements that cover Virginia and Maryland drivers when driving in the District. Unbelted drivers are subject to higher fines in the District ($50.00) than in the other two jurisdictions ($25.00). However, Maryland and Virginia drivers are not subject to points assessed in the District because seat belt violations are not point violations in these states. Many studies have indicated that stronger belt use laws, particularly when stringently enforced, can be very effective in increasing belt use (Williams et al., 1996). However, in North Carolina, where repeated statewide seat belt checkpoints have been conducted for the last five years, use rates have reached a plateau and have yet to exceed 84%. Even though no data are available to compare use rates for cab drivers in the District prior to the new law, it is clear from talking to the drivers that they have real concerns about losing their licenses along with their livelihoods if they are cited multiple times for nonuse. Also, a recent survey of multiple seat belt violators in 90

North Carolina suggests that the addition of license points could provide a strong incentive to these higher risk drivers to use their belts (Reinfurt et al., 1996). Although more research is needed to generalize these results to a wider population, this study and limited evidence from Canada and other countries (Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators, 1996; Winnicki, 1995) indicate that the fear of losing a driver’s license may provide a strong incentive to use seat belts.

REFERENCES American Coalition for Traffic Safety and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (Summary). (1991). Proceedings of the National Leadership Conference on Increasing Safety-Belt Use in the U.S. Washington, DC: Author. Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators. (1996). Strategies for National Occupant Restraint Program 2001. Ottawa, Ontario. Dussault, C. (1990). Effectiveness of a selective traffic enforcement program combined with incentives for seat belt use in Quebec. Health Education Research, 5, 217– 223. Hagenzeiker, M.P. (1991). Strategies to increase the use of restraint system (Summary). Proceedings of a Workshop organized by SWOV and VTT at the VTI-TRB International Conference Traffic Safety on Two Continents. Gothenburg, The Netherlands: SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research. Jonah, B.A., & Grant, B.A. (1985). Long-term effectiveness of selective traffic enforcement programs for increasing seat belt use. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 257– 263. Jonah, B.A., Dawson, N.E., & Smith, G.A. (1982). Effects of a selective traffic enforcement program on seat belt usage. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 89–96. Landry, P.R. (1991). SGI’s 5 year occupant restraint initiative and selective traffic enforcement program. Proceedings of the National Leadership Conference on Increasing Safety-Belt Use in the U.S., 61–64. Washington, DC: American Coalition for Traffic Safety and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Lund, A.K., Stuster, J., & Fleming, A. (1989). Special publicity and enforcement of California’s belt use law: Making a “secondary” law work. Journal of Criminal Justice, 17, 329–341. Maag, U., Vanasse, C., Dionne, G., & Laberge-Nadeau, C. (1994). The high rate of taxi drivers’ crashes: how severe are they in terms of the number of victims? Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference of the Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine, 205–217. Des Plaines, IL: AAAM. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (1997a). Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (1997b). National Automotive Sampling System, General Esti-

Journal of Safety Research

mates System (NASS/GES). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (1997c). National occupant protection use survey—1996 controlled intersection study (Research Note). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (1997d). Presidential initiative for increasing seat belt use nationwide, recommendations from the secretary of transportation (DOT-HS-808–576). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation. Preusser, D.F., Williams, A.F., & Lund, A.K. (1991). Characteristics of belted and unbelted drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 23, 475–482. Reinfurt, D.F., Williams, A.F., Wells, J.K., & Rodgman, E.

Summer 1999/Volume 30/Number 2

(1996). Characteristics of drivers not using seat belts in a high belt use state. Journal of Safety Research, 27, 209–215. Transport Canada. (1994). Results of June 1994 survey of seat belt use in Canada (News Release). Ottawa, Ontario: Traffic Safety Standards and Research, Transport Canada. Welkon, C., & Reisinger, K. (1977). The phantom taxi seat belt. Public Health Briefs, 67, 1091–92. Williams, A.F., Reinfurt, D.F., & Wells, J.K. (1996). Increasing seat belt use in North Carolina. Journal of Safety Research, 27, 33–41. Winnicki, J. (1995). Safety belt use laws: Evaluation of primary enforcement and other provisions (DOT-HS-808– 324). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation.

91