Seat Belt Use Under Voluntary and Mandatory Conditions and its Effect on Casualties

  • Murray Mackay

Abstract

Seat belt usage rates in Britain in the decade prior to the introduction of a mandatory usage law in January 1983 are reviewed to show a stable rate of around 30% in the 1970s. Various risk compensation theories are mentioned briefly, and then some observational data collected in 1982 are analysed to show that certain vehicle characteristics, notably car age and type, have a significant relationship with occupant belt usage rates under voluntary conditions. Speed and belt usage rates do not appear to be related. The audience effect of passenger presence on belt usage rates is discussed.

Data on the first post-law period are presented showing general belt usage rates rising to some 90%. The mortality and morbidity figures for car occupants show a significant reduction of approximately 25% without any discernible influences on other road casualties. Some data on the reductions obtained in specific injuries are given and these findings are discussed.

Keywords

Fatigued Europe Transportation Radar Sonal 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Reference

  1. Adams, J., The Efficacy of Seat Belt Legislation, A Comparative Study of Road Accident Fatality Statistics from 18 Countries, Occasional Paper No. 38, U.C.L. England, 1981.Google Scholar
  2. Bergan, A.T. et al., The Correlation of Vehicle Characteristics with Seat Belt Usage Rates in Saskatchewan, SAE Paper 790679. 1979.Google Scholar
  3. Conybeare, J.A.C., Evaluation of Automobile Safety Regulations, The Case of Compulsory Seat Belt Legislation in Australia, Policy Sciences, 12 27–39, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection. Federal Register, 48 No. 203 Part V. 48627–9, 1983.Google Scholar
  5. Deutsch, D. et al., Seat Belt Usage and Risk-Taking Behavior at Two Major Traffic Intersections, Proc. American Assoc. for Automotive Medicine, Proceedings, October 1980.Google Scholar
  6. Ebbesen, E.B. & Haney, M., Flirting with Death, Variables Affecting Risk-Taking at Intersections, J. of Applied Soc. Psychology, 3, 4, 303–324, 1973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Evans, L. and Herman, R., Note on Driver Adaption to Modified Vehicle Starting Acceleration, Human Factors, 18 (3), 235–240, 1976.Google Scholar
  8. Evans, L., Wasielewski, P. and von Buseck, C.R., Compulsory Seat Belt Usage and Driver Risk-Taking Behavior, Human Factors, 24 (1), 41–48, 1982.Google Scholar
  9. Griffiths, D.K., Hayes, H.R.M., Gloyns, P.F., Rattenbury, S.J. and Mackay G.M., Car Occupant Fatalities and the Effects of Future Safety Legislation. Proc. 20th Stapp. Conf. S.A.E. New York, 335–388, October, 1976.Google Scholar
  10. Hansard, Parliamentary Debates. House of Commons. 65, No. 202, 11, July 30th, 1984.Google Scholar
  11. Joksch, H.C. Critique of Sam Peltzman’s Study, The Effects of Automobile Safety Regulation, Accid. Anal. and Prev 8 129–137, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lines, C.J., Speeds and Flows on the Ml in Bedfordshire during 1978 & 1979, TRRL SR661, 1981.Google Scholar
  13. Mackay, G.M., Airbag Effectiveness—a case for the Compulsory use of Seat Belts. Proc. 14th F.I.S.I.T.A. Cong. Instn. Mech. Engrs. London 3, 56-70, June, 1972.Google Scholar
  14. Mackay, G.M., A Review of Seat Belt Crash Performance in the U.K., Seat Belt Seminar Melbourne, 9–11 March 1976, Paper 12, 1976.Google Scholar
  15. New Scientist, Do Compulsory Seat Belts Save Lives? New Scientist Ltd. London, 19th February, 451, 1981.Google Scholar
  16. O’Neill, B., A Decision—Theory Model of Danger Compensation, Accid. Anal, and Prev. 9, 157–165, 1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Peltzman, S., The Effects of Automobile Safety Regulation, J. of Pol. Economy 83, No. 4, 677–723, 1975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Reinfurt, D.W. and Chi, G.Y.H., Automotive Manual Safety Belt Systems, Proc. Int. Sym. on Occupant Restraint, A.A.A.M. III., June, 165–174, 1981.Google Scholar
  19. Rumar, K. et al., Driver Reaction to a Technical Safety Measure—Studded Tires, Human Factors 18 (5), 443–454, 1976.Google Scholar
  20. Rutherford, W., Greenfield, A., Hayes, H.R.M. and Nelson, J.K., Casualty Surgeons Annual Conf., Edinburgh, 1984.Google Scholar
  21. Smeed, R.J., An Examination of the Results of Some Observations of Driver Behavior, Paper at the 1st International Driver Behavior Research Association Conference, U.C.L., 1973.Google Scholar
  22. Taylor, D.H., Drivers Galvanic Skin Response and the Risk of Accident, Ergonomics, 7, 439–451, 1964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tingvall, C., Is Adams Right? Some Aspects on a Theory Concerning Seat Belt Legislation, J. Traffic Medicine, March, 41–47, 1983.Google Scholar
  24. Wilde, G.J.S., Objective and Subjective Risk in Drivers’ Response to Road Conditions, The Implications of the Theory of Risk Homeostasis for Accident Aetiology and Prevention Paper Presented at this Seminar on the Implications of Risk-Taking Theories for Traffic Safety, West Berlin, Nov., 5–6, 1981.Google Scholar
  25. Wilson, W.T. and Anderson, J.M., The effects of Tire type on Driving Speed and Presumed Risk-Taking,Ergonomics 23, No. 3, 23–235, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zajonc, R.B., Social Facilitation, Science, 149, 269–274, 1965.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Murray Mackay
    • 1
  1. 1.University of BirminghamBirminghamUK

Personalised recommendations