State Legislatures, Sept., 1999: Seatbelt Laws

State Legislatures Magazine: September 1999

Editor's Note: This article appeared in the September 1999 issue of NCSL's magazine, State Legislatures. To order copies or to subscribe, contact the marketing department at (303) 364-7700.

Buckle Up or Else

Belt Use for Safety

Money for Safety Laws

Tough Bills to Pass

Less Use, Higher Injury Rates

Different Perspective

Federal Money Provides the Incentive

As the Twig Is Bent

Buckle Up or Else

To encourage the use of seat belts, states have passed laws to let cops pull over unbelted drivers. To encourage passage of those laws there is a federal incentive of $500 million.

By Jan Goehring

Buckle up. It's the law," say the roadside signs. And it's true, it is the law in every state except New Hampshire. In some states, however, the signs could read: "Buckle up or get pulled over," reflecting a move toward stronger enforcement of seat belt laws.

In most states a driver must commit some kind of moving violation before he can be cited for failure to wear a seat belt. But "primary" or "standard" seat belt laws enacted in at least 16 states and the District of Columbia now allow police officers to pull a driver over when they notice that she is not wearing a seat belt. More than 20 states considered legislation this past year to strengthen seat belt laws. The laws are designed to increase seat belt use and decrease deaths and injuries on the roads.

Opponents object to primary enforcement on the grounds that it is too much government intrusion into our lives, and that drivers should be allowed to make their own decisions about wearing seat belts. Others are concerned that it will give police another way to harass minorities by stopping vehicles on the pretext of belt violations.

BELT USE FOR SAFETY

The National Safety Council (NSC) reports that traffic crashes are the leading cause of all injury-related deaths in America and of deaths of young people aged 6 to 24. During the past 10 years, however, traffic-related deaths and injuries have declined due to a substantial increase in seat belt use. Simply buckling up reduces the risk of fatal injury by 45 percent and the risk of moderate-to-critical injury by 50 percent, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Between 1983 and 1997, seat belt use in the United States rose from 14 percent to 69 percent. This rate has flattened out over the past few years. The U.S. Department of Transportation wants to increase seat belt use to 90 percent by the year 2005. If this goal is achieved, an estimated 5,536 lives will be saved and 132,670 injuries prevented annually, leading to a savings of nearly $9 billion in medical costs and avoided economic losses. Through the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), the federal government has established incentive grants for states that enact tougher seat belt laws and increase belt use.

Safety advocates argue that the most effective way to increase seat belt use and decrease injuries is to pass primary enforcement laws. States with these laws have seen a dramatic increase in belt use. Louisiana belt use increased from 50 percent to 75 percent, and in Maryland the rate went up 13 percentage points in the first year of the law, from 70 percent to 83 percent. States with laws that allow police to pull over drivers who are not wearing belts average 78 percent use rates as compared with the national average rate of 69 percent. California experienced a 35 percent decrease in traffic deaths the first three years after enacting its law.

The static seat belt usage rate in Michigan is what prompted Senator Bill Bullard to introduce a stronger law. "The rate was up to 70 percent and stuck there," he says. The only way to increase it was by letting police stop motorists when they are unbuckled. He used estimates from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to argue that strengthening enforcement in Michigan would save 100 lives, avoid 3,000 injuries and save $170 million in medical and societal costs per year in the state. "When you are injured, you do not just affect yourself. The injured person asks for insurance and government benefits that we all pay for," he explains. His arguments proved persuasive: The bill was signed into law in May.

MONEY FOR SAFETY LAWS

A new seat belt law also passed in Alabama this past session. "It took eight years to get this passed," says the law's sponsor, Representative John Hawkins. What really helped push the bill through are the federal incentives that promise more cash for states with tougher safety laws.

Hawkins says that Alabama was in "dire straits" in its general fund. Passing the law immediately brought in $500,000 in federal funds. If seat belt use goes up, it will mean millions more.

TOUGH BILLS TO PASS

Lawmakers in many states were unsuccessful in getting legislation passed this session. In Colorado and Illinois, bills passed the House, but failed in the Senate. "Safety and savings" arguments could not stand up to the government intrusion argument.

Another argument being used against these seat belt laws is the issue of "racial profiling" or "driving while black or brown." Minorities worry that some police will use any excuse to pull them over and that primary laws offer yet another way to do it. Racial profiling occurs when police stop someone because they fit a preconceived profile of a lawbreaker. Victims report they have been stopped in predominant white neighborhoods for no reason.

Ohio Representative Peter Lawson Jones says seat belt laws won't lead to more illegal stops. "You can already be stopped for about 200 reasons, so law enforcement officials really do not need another arrow in their quiver to justify a stop." Jones is sponsoring both a racial profiling bill to study traffic stops and the primary enforcement bill. "You can pursue the twin objectives of saving lives and the protection of motorists' constitutional rights simultaneously," he says.

The National Urban League supports the enactment of better seat belt laws for safety, but the Indianapolis Urban League and others challenged the constitutionality of the Indiana primary law in court.

Challengers argue that the statute's broad language gives police the authority to stop a vehicle and then determine if seat belts are being worn. In addition, the law allows a search of the car. But in July, the state Supreme Court found the law constitutional saying that it allows police officers to stop a motorist for a possible seat belt violation only when they "reasonably suspect" that the driver or a passenger is not buckled up.

LESS USE, HIGHER INJURY RATES

The Urban League endorses primary laws because statistics show minorities wear seat belts less and suffer serious injury at higher rates. African American and Hispanic male teenagers are nearly twice as likely to die in a motor vehicle crash as other male teens. Standard enforcement laws save lives, particularly in the black community. An eight-year study released in February 1998 by the American Journal of Public Health offers evidence of the effectiveness of these laws. Among 18- to 29-year-old African American men, belt use is higher in states with standard laws-58 percent vs. 46 percent in states with secondary laws.

"For me, all I needed to know was that primary seat belt laws save lives: I am willing to endure a minor form of government intrusion for the sake of safety," adds Representative Jones of Ohio.

Bullard says the minority harassment issue was "blown out of the water" in Michigan with the help of a letter from San Francisco Mayor, and former California speaker, Willie Brown. The letter indicated that Brown knew of no instance in California where its primary enforcement law was used to harass minorities. Spokesmen for the Air Bag and Seat Belt Safety Campaign say they are not aware of any known abuse of the laws. The Urban League has heard some anecdotal evidence. The Michigan law does, however, contain a requirement to study the effect of enforcement on the number of reported incidents of police harassment.

DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE

Florida Senator James Hargrett has a different perspective on the primary belt issue. He says, "In my view it's a public health issue." He's reluctant to fine drivers who fail to buckle up and says, "We've done a lot with education on other public health issues, like smoking, and we ought to try education to increase belt use."

A combination of extensive public education and intensive enforcement efforts helped Washington achieve a high level of belt use. It is one of the only states to obtain a rate significantly higher than the national average without a primary law. Washington's seat belt use rate is 84 percent.

Although Hargrett favors education to increase belt use, he did sponsor the bill several years ago that made failure to use child restraints and seat belts for children a primary offense. "The law ought to protect minors when parents aren't willing," he says.

Although almost every state has a seat belt law to cover adults, enforcing them has been difficult. And they haven't been successful in getting everyone to buckle up. However, according to Dewey, when officers are allowed to stop motorists suspected of not wearing a seat belt, the use of belts by everyone in the car, especially children, goes up.

"If we know crashes are killing kids, then we need to do everything we can to keep them safe," Dewey says. "We need a comprehensive approach that includes strong laws, fairly and uniformly enforced, combined with education programs that encourage everyone to buckle up."

Federal Money Provides the Incentive

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) of 1998 gives states additional federal funds if they adopt certain safety programs.

The Seat Belt Incentive Grant Program ($500 million over five years) is to be divided among qualifying states and can be used for general highway spending, including construction projects.

To qualify states must meet four of six criteria:

A seat belt law that applies to all front seat passengers in all motor vehicles in FY 1999 and FY 2000 and then to all passengers beginning in 2001.
A primary enforcement law.
Fines of not less than $25 or one or more penalty points on the driver's license of an individual for the violation of a seat belt or child passenger law.
A special traffic enforcement program that combines intensified enforcement, public education and publicity that reaches at least 70 percent of the state's population to increase seat belt use and child safety seat use.
A comprehensive statewide child passenger protection education program.
A child passenger protection law that covers all children under age 16 in all seating positions in all vehicles.

A second incentive program offers funds to states that increase their rate of seat belt use. Money is allocated based on the anticipated savings in medical costs. The state is eligible for funds if:

Its seat belt use rate for the past two calendar years exceeds the national average (currently at 69 percent), or
Its seat belt use rate in the previous calendar year exceeds the highest rate the state has achieved for any previous calendar year starting in 1996.

A state may receive an allocation under the second condition only if it fails to meet the first.

-National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

As the Twig Is Bent

In 1997, more than 9,000 children under age 15 were involved in fatal crashes, 63 percent of them unrestrained, according to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

Research indicates, however, that when parents buckle up, they also buckle their children. An observational study by NHTSA showed that when the driver is belted, restraint use for toddlers (ages 1 to 4) is 87 percent. If the driver is not buckled, restraint use for children drops to 24 percent. Other studies confirm these findings.

"We have to apply the most effective medicine to this problem and that is to get adults buckled," says Janet Dewey, executive director of the Air Bag and Seat Belt Safety Campaign. She adds that the adult-child relationship is a strong motivator. Children copy parents' behavior.