Motor Vehicle Injury – Safety Belts: Primary (vs. Secondary) Enforcement Laws

Tabs

Snapshot

Summary of CPSTF Finding

The Community Preventive Services Task Force (CPSTF) recommends primary safety belt laws over secondary enforcement laws to reduce motor vehicle-related injuries and deaths.

Intervention

Primary safety belt laws allow police to stop motorists solely for being unbelted. Secondary safety belt laws only allow police to ticket unbelted motorists if they have been stopped for other reasons, such as speeding.

CPSTF Finding and Rationale Statement

Read the CPSTF finding pdf icon [PDF - 135 KB].

Users who viewed this also viewed

What the CPSTF Found

About The Systematic Review

The CPSTF finding is based on evidence from a systematic review of 13 studies (search period through June 2000).

The review was conducted on behalf of the CPSTF by scientists from CDC’s Division of Unintentional Injury Prevention with input from a team of specialists in systematic review methods and experts in research, practice and policy related to motor vehicle injury prevention.

Context

As of June 2017, 34 states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands have primary safety belt laws for front seat occupants, and 15 states have secondary safety belt laws for front seat occupants. Current figures are available from the Governors Highway Safety Administration External Web Site Icon .

Summary of Results

More details about study results are available in the published evidence review [PDF - 2.85 MB].

The systematic review included 13 studies.

Nine studies compared states with primary laws to states with secondary laws.
Four studies evaluated the effect of changing from secondary to primary laws.
Fatal injuries decreased by a median of 8% in primary law states versus secondary law states (5 studies).
Observed seat belt use increased by a median of 14 percentage points in primary law states versus secondary law states (5 studies).
Police-reported safety belt use could not be calculated (1 study).
Self-reported safety belt use could not be calculated (2 studies)

Summary of Economic Evidence

An economic review of this intervention did not find any relevant studies.

Applicability

These findings should be applicable to all U.S. drivers and passengers.

Evidence Gaps

CPSTF identified several areas that have limited information. Additional research and evaluation could help answer the following questions and fill remaining gaps in the evidence base. (What are evidence gaps?)

What are the age, gender, and racial differences between violators in primary and secondary law states?
Are primary enforcement laws more or less effective in certain populations?
Do primary safety belt laws increase or decrease risky driving?
Do primary laws or enhanced enforcement programs deter alcohol-impaired driving?
Are primary laws associated with changes in frequency of traffic stops for ethnic and racial minorities relative to the general population?
What are the cost-benefit, cost utility, and cost-effectiveness of interventions to increase safety belt use?
How can communities increase public acceptance of primary safety belt laws?

Study Characteristics

All of the included studies compared laws in the United States.
- Studies compared states with primary laws to those with secondary laws (9 studies), or evaluated the effect of changing from a secondary to a primary law (4 studies). There were no studies of states changing from a primary law to a secondary law.
Studies were conducted in 49 states and the District of Columbia and looked at drivers and passengers of all ages.
Reported outcomes included fatal injuries, observed safety belt use, police-reported safety belt use, and self-reported safety belt use.

Supporting Materials

Analytic Framework

Effectiveness Review

Analytic Framework pdf icon [PDF - 2.85 MB] – see Figure 1 on page 49

When starting an effectiveness review, the systematic review team develops an analytic framework. The analytic framework illustrates how the intervention approach is thought to affect public health. It guides the search for evidence and may be used to summarize the evidence collected. The analytic framework often includes intermediate outcomes, potential effect modifiers, potential harms, and potential additional benefits.

Summary Evidence Table

Effectiveness Review

Summary Evidence Table pdf icon [PDF - 2.85 MB] – see Appendices 1 and 2, pages 61- 65

Included Studies

The number of studies and publications do not always correspond (e.g., a publication may include several studies or one study may be explained in several publications).

Effectiveness Review

Campbell BJ. The association between enforcement and seat belt use. J Safety Res 1988;19:150–63.

Escobedo LG, Chorba TL, Remington PL, Anda RF, Sanderson L, Zaidi AA. The influence of safety belt laws on self-reported safety belt use in the United States. Accid Anal Prev 1992;24:643–53.

Evans WN, Graham JD. Risk reduction or risk compensation? The case of mandatory safety-belt use laws. J Risk Uncertainty 1991;4:61–73.

Fielding JE, Knight KK, Goetzel RZ. The impact of legislation on self-reported safety belt use in a working population. J Occup Med 1992;34:715–7.

Houston DJ, Richardson LE, Neeley GW. Legislating traffic safety: a pooled time series analysis. Soc Sci Q 1995;76:328–45.

Houston DJ, Richardson LE, Neeley GW. Mandatory seat belt laws in the states: a study of fatal and severe occupant injuries. Eval Rev 1996;20:146–59.

Lange JE, Voas RB. Nighttime observations of safety belt use: an evaluation of California’s primary law. Am J Public Health 1998;88:1718–20.

Preusser DF, Preusser CW. Evaluation of Louisiana’s safety belt law change to primary enforcement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1997. DOT HS 808 620.

Solomon MG, Nissen WJ. Evaluation of Maryland, Oklahoma, and the District of Columbia’s seat belt law change to primary enforcement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2000. DOT HS 809 213.

Ulmer RG, Preusser CW, Preusser DF, Cosgrove LA. Evaluation of California’s safety belt law change from secondary to primary enforcement. J Safety Res 1995;26:213–20.

Wagenaar AC, Maybee RG, Sullivan KP. Mandatory seat belt laws in eight states: a time-series evaluation. J Safety Res 1988;19:51–70.

Winnicki J. Safety belt use laws: evaluation of primary enforcement and other provisions. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1995. DOT HS 808 324.

Search Strategies

The following outlines the search strategy used for reviews of these interventions to increase use of safety belts: Laws Mandating Use; Primary (vs. Secondary) Enforcement Laws; Enhanced Enforcement Programs.

The reviews of interventions to reduce motor vehicle-related injury reflect systematic searches of multiple databases as well as reviews of reference lists and consultations with experts in the field. The team searched six computerized databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Psychlit, Sociological Abstracts, EI Compendex, and Transportation Research Information Services [TRIS]), which yielded 10,958 titles and abstracts for articles, book chapters, reports, and published papers from the Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine proceedings about safety belts, alcohol-impaired driving or child passenger safety. Studies were eligible for inclusion if:

They were published from the originating date of the database through June 2000 (March 1998 for child safety seat interventions)
They involved primary studies, not guidelines or reviews
They were published in English
They were relevant to the interventions selected for review
The evaluation included a comparison to an unexposed or less-exposed population
The evaluation measured outcomes defined by the analytic framework for the intervention

Search Strategy for Use of Safety Belts:

(MOTOR(W)VEHICLE?) OR AUTOMOBILE? OR CAR OR CARS OR TRUCK? OR (TRAFFIC(2N)(ACCIDENT? OR CRASH? OR DEATH? OR FATALIT? OR INJUR?))

AND

(SEAT(W)BELT?) OR SEATBELT? OR (SAFETY(W)RESTRAINT?) OR (SAFETY(W)BELT?) OR (OCCUPANT(W)RESTRAINT?) OR OCCUPANT(W)PROTECTION)

AND

INTERVENTION? OR OUTREACH? OR PREVENTION OR (COMMUNITY(3N)(RELATION? OR PROGRAM? OR ACTION)) OR DETERRENT? OR PROGRAM? OR LEGISLATION? OR LAW? OR EDUCATION OR DETERRENCE OR COUNSELING OR CLASS OR CLASSES OR TRAINING OR PROMOTION? OR BEHAVIOR?

NOT

PEDESTRIAN? OR MOTORCYCLE OR BICYCL? OR CYCLIST? OR (SCHOOL(W)BUS?) OR BUS OR BUSES OR AIRPLANE? OR AIR(W)TRANSPORTATION?) OR AVIATION? OR (AIR(W)TRAFFIC) OR (AIR(W)CRAFT) OR DIAGNOSIS OR THERAPY OR GUIDELINE OR COMMENT? OR HISTORY OR EDITORIAL

Considerations for Implementation

The CPSTF recommendation and evidence from this review may be used to inform decisions about primary vs. secondary safety belt laws. Following are considerations drawn from studies included in the evidence review, the broader literature, and expert opinion.

Engage partners throughout the process. Building support from the ground up can help secure policies that reinforce healthy behaviors in the community.
Demonstrate why the policy is important. Use CPSTF findings and recent surveillance data to show partners how policies have been effective, and explain how strengthening them could further improve health outcomes in their community.
Educate stakeholders. Keep the media, community influencers, and policymakers informed about safety belt laws to help communicate messages that are accurate and timely.
- Keep messages brief and to the point. Use graphics, figures, or infographics to clearly demonstrate how the intervention can improve health outcomes.
- Extend communication reach by working through partners who have credibility with key audiences.
Pay attention to sustainability. Continue to conduct surveillance related to safety belt use and disseminate findings.
Adults who use safety belts are more likely to buckle up their child passengers.
One possible negative effect of primary safety belt laws is the potential for enforcement officers to stop drivers based purely on race or ethnicity. However, studies examining the issue have found no evidence that primary belt laws contribute to such differential enforcement or racial profiling.
Perceived public opposition to primary safety belt laws may be a barrier to their implementation. Infringement on personal freedom and the potential for differential enforcement are concerns most often cited. To increase public acceptance, some states have included anti-harassment language in their primary safety belt laws.

Crosswalks

Healthy People 2020

Healthy People 2020 includes the following objectives related to this CPSTF recommendation.

Search form

You are here

Motor Vehicle Injury – Safety Belts: Primary (vs. Secondary) Enforcement Laws

Tabs

Summary of CPSTF Finding

Intervention

CPSTF Finding and Rationale Statement

Users who viewed this also viewed

About The Systematic Review

Context

Summary of Results

Summary of Economic Evidence

Applicability

Evidence Gaps

Study Characteristics

Analytic Framework

Effectiveness Review

Summary Evidence Table

Effectiveness Review

Included Studies

Effectiveness Review

Search Strategies

Considerations for Implementation

Crosswalks

Healthy People 2020

Create a free account to save your bookmarks