Traffic Tech #179: Six Jurisdictions Upgrade to Primary Seat Belt Laws in Six Different Ways

Number 179                                                             January 1998

SIX JURISDICTIONS UPGRADE TO PRIMARY SEAT BELT LAWS IN SIX DIFFERENT WAYS

In his weekly radio address to the nation on December 28, 1996, President Clinton asked all Americans to always wear seat belts as a first line of defense against traffic injuries and fatalities and to always keep children ages 12 and under buckled in the back seat, where they are safest. The President then directed the Secretary of Transportation to prepare a plan to increase the use of seat belts nationwide. Buckle Up, America! sets an ambitious goal to increase national seat belt use to 85 percent by the year 2000, and to 90 percent by 2005. The national seat belt use rate currently is 69 percent.

States that have primary, or standard, seat belt laws typically have higher seat belt use rates than states with secondary laws. California has achieved 90 percent and some states, like New Mexico and Oregon are approaching 90 percent, so the nationwide goal is attainable. Under primary enforcement, a citation can be written whenever a law enforcement officer sees an unbelted driver or passenger. Under secondary enforcement, an officer must first stop a motorist for another infraction. In three states that upgraded to primary enforcement, belt use immediately increased by 8 to 17 percentage points.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) sponsored a study by Low+Associates of Chevy Chase, Maryland to document the legislative history in six jurisdictions that recently upgraded their seat belt laws to primary enforcement. California (1992), Louisiana (1995), Georgia (1996), Maryland (1997), Oklahoma (1997), and the District of Columbia (1997) each had a unique political situation. The researchers gathered information from bill sponsors, committee chairs, legislators, lobbyists, law enforcement officials, Governors' offices, national safety organizations, and media representatives.

Drop Secondary Enforcement Law Status

In these jurisdictions, a multi-year perspective influenced the focus of primary enforcement legislation. Rather than lobby for a complete package of upgraded seat belt provisions or adopt a model safety belt law, all dropped secondary enforcement provisions, thereby giving belt laws primary status. Most did not significantly change other provisions. California expanded its law to cover pickup trucks, Oklahoma lowered its fine to $20, and the District of Columbia added coverage for all vehicle classes and seating positions, a $50 fine, and a 2-point sanction on the driver's license. It's the only jurisdiction in the country that puts points on a driver's license for a seat belt violation.

Key Players

Governor -- The Governor's political support for, or tacit acceptance of, the primary seat belt legislation was necessary to move the legislation forward. No legislator wanted to fight for passage through both houses only to face the Governor's veto.

Sponsors -- The most effective sponsors of this legislation were those with standing in the minority community, appropriate committee assignments, and personal interest in the success of the safety belt legislation.

Committee Chair --The ability of the Committee Chair to move the bill out of committee was, in most states, the key challenge to its passage. Thus, the assignment of the bill to a committee with a supportive Committee Chair was a crucial component of effective legislative strategy.

Grassroots Traffic Safety Groups -- With long-term vested interests in state and local political processes, these groups were often the primary force behind the passage of the original secondary belt law, and had extensive experience with legislators on their state's traffic safety issues.

National Safety Advocacy Groups -- These groups were able to link local groups with allies who could provide additional support, resources, and insight, and they often infused statewide coalitions with skill and money. In a few jurisdictions, conflict arose between the national and grassroot groups.

Lobbyists -- Lobbyists were influential, often in generating the legislative breakthroughs to move the legislation out of committee. In some jurisdictions, coalitions were concerned that the lobbyists were willing to negotiate on issues that the coalitions found unacceptable, while on the other hand, the lobbyists felt constrained in their ability to broker a deal they believed would facilitate passage.

Law Enforcement -- In all jurisdictions, legislators looked to law enforcement officials to validate the importance of the primary law's passage. Key issues that law enforcement officials addressed were the impact of the legislation on lowering the fatality rate, the promise that harassment would not be tolerated, and the need to eliminate the aberration that the secondary standard of enforcement introduced.

Media -- Media were important in generating broad public support for the enforcement of seat belt laws, but were not directly relevant to the internal political processes, according to legislators.

NHTSA -- In some jurisdictions, NHTSA provided statistics on belt use, injury and fatality rates, and medical costs accrued by the unbelted who were injured. In others, senior NHTSA officials were invited to testify at hearings. Each jurisdiction was sensitive to Federal involvement, given that government intrusion was a key opposition concern.

Opposition Arguments

Legislative opposition was primarily fueled by two concerns -- the potential for the harassment of minorities, and government infringement on individual rights. Understanding opposition arguments led to opportunities for compromise. A range of responses included promises by law enforcement officials to provide equitable enforcement, reports that harassment had not occurred in other primary law states, bill sponsorship by minority legislators, and adding a sunset provision or restricting police from using a belt stop for other enforcement purposes. Statistics showing the number of lives and amount of tax dollars saved through seat belt use were used to argue that lower public expenditures for medical care and reduced need for tax revenues offset the potential intrusiveness of standard enforcement.

Lessons Learned

Organizations that wish to upgrade their own state's secondary belt law will find the lessons learned in this report useful. The concepts might also apply to other traffic safety issues. The report includes recommendations for future research.

HOW TO ORDER

For a copy of Legislative History of Recent Primary Safety Belt Use Laws, write to the Office of Research and Traffic Records, NHTSA, NTS-31, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20590, send a fax to (202) 366-7096, or download from NHTSA's homepage http://www.nhtsa.dot. gov Douglas Gurin was the contract manager,

e-mail dgurin@nhtsa.dot.gov

U.S. Department
of Transportation
National Highway
Traffic Safety
Administration
400 Seventh Street, S.W. NTS-31
Washington, DC 20590

Traffic Tech is a publication to disseminate
information about traffic safety programs,
including evaluations, innovative programs,
and new publications. Feel free to copy it as you wish.
If you would like to receive a copy contact:
Linda Cosgrove, Ph.D., Editor, Evaluation Staff
Traffic Safety Programs
(202) 366-2759, fax (202) 366-7096
mailto:lcosgrove@nhtsa.dot.gov