safety belt use in west virginia, 2008 - wv department of … · 2015. 8. 17. · acknowledgments...
TRANSCRIPT
Safety Belt Usein West Virginia, 2008
Division of Motor VehiclesWest Virginia Department of Transportation
Mountain State CriminalJustice Research Services
This report was prepared under a grant provided by the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway TrafficSafety Administration.
The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the U.S.Department of Transportation, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the WV Department ofTransportation, or the WV Governor’s Highway Safety Program.
Recommended citation:Haas, Stephen M. (2009, March). Safety Belt Use in West Virginia, 2008. Charleston, WV: Mountain StateCriminal Justice Research Services.
Mountain State Criminal Justice Research ServicesCharleston, West [email protected]
About MSCJRS…
Mountain State Criminal Justice Research Services (MSCJRS) is a private research company that conducts criminaljustice and social science research and offers consultation, training, and grant-writing services to government agencies,nonprofit institutions, and private businesses. MSCJRS seeks to improve policy and practice through research andanalysis and provides consultation to governmental and nongovernmental entities in the areas of grant-writing and programdevelopment. For more information about MSCJRS and the services it provides, please contact [email protected].
Acknowledgments
West Virginia Safety Belt Survey, 2008 i
The 2008 Observational Survey of Safety Belt Use in West Virginia was conducted under the direction of the WestVirginia Division of Motor Vehicles, Governor’s Highway Safety Program (GHSP). The GHSP is responsible for theadministration of highway safety programs in the state. Occupant protection is among several significant program areasfor which the GHSP is responsible. A portion of GHSP’s occupant protection program funding comes from the FederalGovernment, which requires administration of a statewide survey of safety belt use that must adhere to the uniform surveycriteria developed under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 23 CFR Part 1340. West Virginia’s firststatewide survey was completed in 1992. The 2008 survey, conducted in June 2008, provides an estimate of safety beltuse in WV that is comparable to the 1992 estimate accredited by NHTSA in 1998 and all statewide surveys conductedthereafter.
The collection of the observational survey data and production of this report involved many staff persons within the GHSPand independent contractors. Bob Tipton, director of the GHSP, directed the study. Special thanks is extended toBarbara Lobert, program manager for the GHSP, compiling the survey data and managing the project. The author wouldalso like to acknowledge J. D. Meadows for overseeing the data collection efforts and all of the individuals that participatedin making field observations. This study would not have been possible without the hard work and dedication of theseindividuals.
Table of Contents
ii West Virginia Safety Belt Survey, 2008
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 1
Scope of the Survey ................................................................................................................ 1
Organization of the Report ...................................................................................................... 2
METHODS .................................................................................................................................................. 3
Data Collection ...................................................................................................................... 3
Procedures ............................................................................................................................ 4Safety Belt Observer Instruction Form ........................................................................... 4Observers ........................................................................................................................ 4Observation Schedule ....................................................................................................... 5Data Collection Form ......................................................................................................... 5
Seat Belt Usage Rate and Variability Calculations ................................................................ 5
RESULTS .................................................................................................................................................... 7
Total Observations and Selected Occupant, Vehicle, and Site Characteristics .................... 7
Weighted Safety Belt Use Rate, 2008 ..................................................................................... 9
Weighted Safety Belt User Rate by County ............................................................................. 10
Weighted Safety Belt Use Rate by Road Type ......................................................................... 11
Characteristics of Belted Drivers and Passengers ................................................................. 12
Drivers and Passengers Belted by Gender ............................................................................ 13
Drivers Belted by Vehicle Type and Site Characteristics ....................................................... 14
Passengers Belted by Vehicle Type and Site Characteristics .............................................. 15
Table of Contents
West Virginia Safety Belt Survey, 2008 iii
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 16
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................. 17Appendix A: Safety Belt Observational Survey Counties and RegionsAppendix B: County Populations and Probability of SelectionAppendix C: Safety Belt Observational Survey Site ListAppendix D: Safety Belt Observer InstructionsAppendix E: Observational Survey Data Collection Form
Tables and Graphs
TABLES
Table 1: Number and Percentage of Total Observed Front Seat Occupants, 2008 ............................... 7
Table 2: Distribution of Selected Occupant, Vehicle, and Site Characteristics ...................................... 8
Table 3: Weighted Safety Belt Use Rate by County, 2000-2008............................................................. 10
GRAPHS
Graph 1: Weighted Safety Belt Use Rate in West Virginia, 1998-2008 .................................................... 9
Graph 2: Weighted Safety Belt Use Rate by Road Type, 2000-2008....................................................... 11
Graph 3: Distribution of Drivers and Passengers Belted, 2008 ............................................................... 12
Graph 4: Distribution of Drivers and Passengers Belted by Gender, 2008............................................ 12
Graph 5: Proportion of Drivers Belted by Vehicle Type and Site Characteristics, 2008 ........................... 13
Graph 6: Proportion of Passengers Belted by Vehicle Type and Site Characteristics, 2008 ................... 14
iv West Virginia Safety Belt Survey, 2008
Figures
FIGURES
Figure 1: Calculation of Statewide Safety Belt Use Rate ............................................................................ 6
Figure 2: Calculation of the Standard Deviation of the Statewide Safety Belt Use Rate............................. 6
West Virginia Safety Belt Survey, 2008 1
Introduction
Traffic crashes are a leading cause of death for bothadults and children in the United States (National HighwayTraffic Safety Association, 2007a). Yet, while researchshows that some of these traffic crash fatalities could beprevented, many passenger vehicle occupants still do not“buckle up” prior to traveling on our nation’s roadways. In2006, the NHTSA found that of the 28,141 passenger vehicleoccupant fatalities for which restraint use was known, anestimated 15,523 (55%) were not wearing a seat belt at thetime of the incident (Glassbrenner and Ye, 2007).
Research clearly indicates that increasing the use ofsafety belts has tremendous potential for saving lives,preventing injuries and reducing the economic costs associatedwith crashes (NHTSA, 2005). Research has found that lap/shoulder seat belts, when used, can reduce the risk of fatalinjury to front-seat passenger car occupants by 45 percentand the risk of moderate-to-critical injury by 50 percent(NHTSA, 2005). Given that research has shown thatincreasing the use of seat belts can save lives, many stateshave eagerly participated in a targeted campaign, “Click It orTicket”, to educate the public and ticket vehicle occupantsfor not using safety belts.
The “Click It or Ticket” campaign is identified as one ofthe most successful seat belt enforcement campaigns ever,according to NHTSA, and is credited with helping to producesome of the highest seat belt usage rates in the country. Basedon NHTSA’s National Occupant Protection Use Survey(NOPUS), the seat belt use rate nationwide was 81.0% in2006, up from 58.0% in 1994 and 71.0% in 2000 (NHTSA,2007b). As part of West Virginia’s efforts to improve highwaysafety, the Governor’s Highway Safety Program (GHSP) hasparticipated in the national “Click It or Ticket” campaign andmaintained efforts to monitor safety belt use in the state.
As a result of the GHSP’s efforts, the rate of safety beltuse in the state has increased each year since 2000. Since2006, WV’s safety belt use rate has exceeded the nationalaverage for 2006 of 81.0%. In 2006, WV’s safety belt userate was 88.5%. By 2007, the safety belt use rate in WVreached its highest level ever at 89.6%, up from 49.5% in2000 and a low of 32.0% in 1992. Nearly the same as the
rate in 2007, the 2008 safety belt use rate in WV was estimatedat 89.5%.
Scope of the ReportThis report represents an integral part of WV’s efforts to
monitor and increase safety belt use in the state. The primarypurpose of this report is to systematically document the safety
Report Highlights...
• West Virginia’s safety belt use rate exceeded thenational average for 2006 over the past three years. Theseat belt use rate nationwide was 81.0% in 2006, comparedto WV’s use rate of 88.5% in 2006, 89.6% in 2007, and89.5% in 2008.
• The safety belt use rate in West Virginia has continuedto increase each year since 2000. In 2008, the weightedsafety belt use rate remained at a near high of 89.5%, upfrom 49.5% in 2000 and a low of 32.0% in 1992.
• From 2000 to 2008, the percentage of motorist wearingsafety belts increased by 40 percentage points from 49.5%in 2000 to 89.5% in 2008.
• By 2008, all fourteen counties had a safety belt userate above eighty percent with 7 of the 14 countiessampled with usage rates at ninety percent or above.
• The safety belt use rate for Greenbrier Countyincreased by 69.9 percentage points from a low of 20.8%in 2000 to 90.7% in 2008.
• Six counties experienced a percentage point increasesin safety belt use of forty percent or greater since 2000.These counties included Harrison, Greenbrier, Mercer,Raleigh, Marshall, Preston, and Ohio.
• In 2008, Berkeley County had the lowest safety beltuse rate in WV at 88.1%, up 4.4% since 2007.
• In 2008, approximately ninety percent of all vehiclesobserved had a belted front seat occupant, regardless ofroad type.
2 West Virginia Safety Belt Survey, 2008
belt use rate and identify the primary sources of variation inseat belt use for the state of West Virginia. The 2008Observational Survey of Safety Belt Use in West Virginiawas conducted under the direction of the West Virginia Divisionof Motor Vehicles, Governor’s Highway Safety Program(GHSP).
The current survey used a multi-stage, stratified clustersampling procedure to identify 95 sites for vehicle and occupantobservations. The data collection procedures for the 2008survey were guided by the 1998 Uniform Criteria forObservational Surveys of Seat Belt Use established by NHTSA(23 CFR, Part 1340). Extensive efforts were made to adhereto historical site and observation procedures in an effort toprovide data directly comparable to the previous safety beltuse surveys in the state. As a result, the 2008 survey calculateda statewide safety belt use rate for drivers and outboard frontseat passengers in passenger vehicles that is comparable toprevious surveys.
Observers recorded safety belt information on 15,679drivers and 3,504 outboard front seat passengers for a total of19,183 observations. These observations were compiledacross 95 observation sites and 14 counties. In accordancewith the sampling strategy, the largest percentage ofobservations occurred in the counties with the largestresidential populations. Nearly one-half of all vehiclesobserved were passenger cars (46.6%), followed by trucks(22.8%) and sport utility vehicles (22.1%). Vans comprisedless than ten percent of all vehicles observed (8.6%).
Over forty percent of driver observations occurred insouthern counties (45.7%). Likewise, 37.2% of driverobservations took place in the north central area of the state.Just over ten percent of observations occurred in the eastern(10.2%). Less than ten percent of observations took place inthe northern (7.0%) panhandle regions of the state. More thanhalf of driver observations took place in rural areas (57.5%)compared to 42.5% of observations in urban areas.Additionally, most observations also occurred on expressways(33.2%) and feeder routes (27.6%) with only 16.8% ofobservations occurring on trunk lines.
Organization of the ReportThis report begins with a detailed discussion of the sampling
procedures and methods used to obtain an estimate of the
safety belt use rate in WV. Weighting procedures for obtainingan estimate of belt use by all occupants for each roadwayclass is also described. This is followed by a presentation ofthe results. A summary of the characteristics of occupants,vehicles, and observation sites is provided. This reportconcludes with an analysis of selected characteristics ofvehicle occupants and observation sites using the unweightedsample of observations. It is anticipated that this informationwill help to identify the conditions in which safety belts aremore or less likely to be used in the state.
Report Highlights...
• Males were significantly less likely to be using asafety belt compared to females in 2008. This held trueregardless of whether the vehicle occupant was a driveror passenger.
• In 2008, a substantial amount of variation was foundin drivers and passengers belted by vehicle and roadwaytype as well as region of the state.
• Both drivers and passengers in trucks weresignificantly less likely to be wearing a seat belt comparedto occupants in other types of vehicles in 2008.
• Drivers traveling in sport utility vehicles were themost likely group to be wearing a safety belt in 2008(93.3%), followed by drivers in vans (93.1%) andpassenger cars (89.7%).
• Drivers of vehicles traveling on local service roadswere significantly less likely to be wearing a safety beltcompared to drivers on other classes of roadways in 2008.
• Drivers in the eastern panhandle region andpassengers in south region of the state were significantlyless likely to be wearing a seat belt in 2008 compared tooccupants in other regions of the state.
• Drivers in the north central region of the state andpassengers in the northern panhandle region of the statewere more likely than any other vehicle occupants to bewearing a seat beat in 2008.
West Virginia Safety Belt Survey, 2008 3
Methods
Data CollectionThe 2008 sampling strategy followed the procedures used
in previous surveys. The sample was selected using amultistage, stratified cluster sampling procedure. A sample ofcounties was selected first and followed by roadways withineach county. Once specific roadways were identified,intersections of roads were sampled. Finally, vehicles passingthrough the intersections were randomly observed. Throughthis process, a sample of 95 observation sites were identifiedwhich provided a representative sample of observation sitesfor studying safety belt use in West Virginia.
To obtain a representative sample of sites, the state wasstratified into four regions to ensure that all regions of thestate were represented in the final sample. These regionswere identified as the Eastern Panhandle, Northern Panhandle,North Central, and South (see Appendix A). Of the 55 WVcounties, roughly one-quarter were randomly selected forinclusion in the survey. Two counties were randomly selectedfrom each of the two panhandles, and five counties each wereselected from the North Central and South regions of the state.In total, observations were conducted in 14 counties.
The number of counties sampled per region was basedon population levels within regions (Althouse, Heffner, andElliot, 2001). Based on 2000 Census estimates, the NorthCentral (51%) and Southern (30%) regions of the statecombined included roughly 81 percent of population in thestate. The Eastern Panhandle (10%) and Northern Panhandle(8%) contained roughly 18 percent. For further informationon population estimates and the probability of selection, seeAppendix B.
To arrive at the sample of 14 counties utilized in this study,information on population size and region of the state wastaken into account. The five largest counties in the state wereautomatically included in the sample to reflect the relativeproportion of the state’s population residing in these counties.These counties were Cabell, Kanawha, and Raleigh in theSouth Region and Wood and Monongalia in the North CentralRegion. Based on 2000 Census data, these five countiescontain 30.5 percent (546,689 residents) of West Virginia’spopulation. Other counties included in the survey were sampled
through a random process. The 14 counties altogethercontained 52.2 percent of the population (936,170 residents)in 2000.
Within each county, four to eight observation sites wereselected. The most densely populated counties contained moresample sites and less densely populated counties containedfewer. Selection of individual observation sites within countieswas based on information provided by the West VirginiaDepartment of Highways (DOH). DOH provided informationconcerning various roadway classifications within each countyand the amount of travel per roadway classification. Roadwayclassifications included local service, feeder routes, trunk lines,and expressway/interstates.
Sampling within each county accounted for differencesin travel patterns among the different roadway classifications.Individual observation sites were distributed equal to themeasured proportions of travel per roadway classification ineach county. Once proportion of travel per roadwayclassification was identified, equal proportions of intersectionsper roadway type were designated as observation sites.
Individual observation sites in the sample have remainednearly unchanged since previous safety belt surveys. That is,the same 95 sites in the same 14 counties have been usedeach time a statewide survey has been conducted. For adetailed list of observation sites, see Appendix C. However,in 2002 widespread flooding in southern West Virginiaprecluded the use of four observation sites in McDowellCounty. McDowell County is in the south region of the state.Most of the roads in this county were deemed unusable fortravel at the time of the survey, making observational surveysof seat belt use impossible.1 In order not to impactrepresentation of these sites in the sample, four replacementsites were randomly identified in nearby Greenbrier Countywhich is located in the same region of the state. The four_____________________
1 Beginning in 2002, minor changes were made to the Observational SurveyData Collection Form and observation sites. In 2002, the data collectionform no longer gathered information on whether an observed vehicle had aWest Virginia license plate. In addition, the 2002 survey requiredrepositioning of a small number of observation sites due to a widespreadflooding disaster in McDowell County. A total of four sites were impactedby this incident. The process of repositioning the observation sites involvedoversight by the NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics and Analysis.
4 West Virginia Safety Belt Survey, 2008
replacement sites in Greenbrier County were randomlysampled in such a way as to match the proportional distributionof roadway classifications in McDowell County. The 2006-2008 survey continued using sites in Greenbrier County.
ProceduresSpecific data collection procedures were established prior
to the initiation of data collection. The procedures were guidedby the 1998 Uniform Criteria for Observational Surveys ofSeat Belt Use established by NHTSA (23 CFR, Part 1340).
Safety Belt Observer Instruction Form. A one-pageinstruction form was developed for review by observers toensure knowledge of the guidelines for conducting siteobservations (Appendix D). The Safety Belt ObserverInstruction Form provided to each site observer. Moreover,each observer was encouraged to review the guidelines on aperiodic basis. A sample of the guidelines set forth on theSafety Belt Observer Instruction Form included:
• Length of observation period would be 45 minutes;
• Vehicle types to include were passenger vehicles,including cars, pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles andvans;
• Observable occupants included drivers and outboard,front seat passengers. Children in a front seat childrestraint would be excluded, however, children thatare unrestrained and in the front seat would becounted;
• Each lane of traffic in one direction would be observedfor an equal amount of time;
• On heavy traffic roadways, if traffic was moving toofast to observe every vehicle, a focal point up theroad in the appropriate lane was to be picked. Thefocal point would indicate a next vehicle forobservation after the last vehicle had been recorded;
• If rain, fog or inclement weather occurred, theobserver was to wait 15 minutes to see if it wouldstop. If bad weather persisted, the site was to be
rescheduled for another day; and
• If construction compromised a site, the observer wastold to move one block so that the same stream oftraffic could be observed. If this would not work, analternate site would be selected.
Historical site and observational details were adhered toin order to provide data directly comparable to the previoussafety belt use surveys. Features included exact observationlocation, direction of traffic to be observed, and time of day.These data elements were requisite to 2008 data collection.
Observers. A total of sixteen site observers wereselected and trained to conduct the site observations. Nearlyall of the observers had previous experience collectingobservational safety belt use data. All observers attended aclassroom training session where sites and schedules wereassigned, observation procedures were explained, and allmaterials necessary for conducting the observational studywere distributed (directions, schedules, site maps, datacollection forms, clipboards, pens, return envelopes, etc.).
For training purposes, a minority of observers withoutprevious experience paired with trained and experiencedobservers to conduct mock-observations prior to actual data
Report Highlights...
• The 2008 Observational Survey of Safety Belt Usein West Virginia used a multi-stage, stratified clustersampling procedure to identify 95 sites for vehicle andoccupant observations.
• The data collection procedures for the 2008 surveywere guided by the 1998 Uniform Criteria for ObservationalSurveys of Seat Belt Use established by NHTSA (23 CFR,Part 1340).
• Extensive efforts were made to adhere to historicalsite and observation procedures in an effort to provide datadirectly comparable to the previous safety belt use surveysin the state.
West Virginia Safety Belt Survey, 2008 5
collection. During mock-observations, the experiencedobserver monitored and ensured that procedures wereunderstood, observations were accurate and data wererecorded accurately. These pairings were successful inproviding the trainer and trainee the opportunity to correctany problems.
In most instances, two observers were positioned at eachobservation site. One observer called out data as sampledvehicles passed. It was the primary responsibility of the secondobserver to record data. Whenever possible, the secondobserver was also charged with the task of helping to verifythe observation details.
Observation Schedule. Observations were made duringthe daylight hours and all seven days of the week were includedin the survey. Careful attention was given to historicalinformation on procedures used in previous surveys. Datacollection procedures placed emphasis on replicating date andtime information associated with previous surveys. Forexample, time of day was taken into account to ensure thatsites visited during rush hour in past surveys remained rushhour sites, morning sites remained morning sites, afternoonsites remained afternoon sites, and late afternoon sitesremained late afternoon sites.
Observation sites were mapped in advance. Mappinghelped to identify geographic location of sites as well as thetarget date and time of day for observation. Mapping enabledobservers to plan trips in advance; thereby, increasingefficiency in travel and labor. Since observation work wasdivided among 16 people, scheduling observations over a shorttime period was relatively easy. Observers were assigned tofour to six observation sites per day.
Data Collection Form. Survey information was recordedon the Observational Survey Data Collection Form (seeAppendix E). The data collection form was designed for usein the 2002 statewide survey of safety belt use and has beenused in each survey since 2002. The form was designed sothat pertinent site information could be recorded. Informationwas gathered on the observation site as well as the vehiclesand occupants observed. Each one-page form included spaceto record information on 50 vehicles. Observation site andother information captured on the Observational Survey DataCollection Form are summarized below.
Observation site:• county• site number and notes• roadway location• date of observation• day of week• time of day i.e., start time and end time)• weather conditions (i.e., clear/sunny, light rain, cloudy,
fog, clear but wet)
Vehicle/Occupant:• vehicle type (i.e., car, pick-up, SUV, van)• driver gender• passenger gender• driver belt use/non-use (i.e., yes, no)• passenger belt use/non- use (i.e., yes, no)
Once the observation data was gathered, the informationwas entered into a referential database by the West VirginiaGovernor’s Highway Safety Program. After the data wereentered, ten percent of cases were randomly drawn andchecked for errors. The data were then entered into astatistical analysis package for further cleaning andexamination. Weighting procedures used to estimate theoverall statewide safety belt use rate were formulated usingMicrosoft Excel. To check the reliability of the data gathered,comparisons were made between data collected by individualobservers and patterns in historical data.
Seat Belt Usage Rate and Variability CalculationsAs noted previously, some regions of the state were
oversampled relative to the proportion of the state population.In addition, traffic on controlled access roadways wassomewhat underrepresented since observations were madeonly at exit ramps. Therefore, small adjustments in weightingwere made using standard statistical procedures to correctfor this type of condition.
To ensure appropriate representation in the sample, thefive largest population counties (Cabell, Kanawha, Monongalia,Raleigh, and Wood) were sampled with probability 1.00. The
6 West Virginia Safety Belt Survey, 2008
results were adjusted prior to analysis through the use ofdifferential weighting. The data from each of the 14 countieswere given a weight equal to the inverse of their probabilityof selection, ensuring proper representation of data from each
county.A final adjustment was made in order to ameliorate the
effects of a logistical problem in data collection. Becauseobservations of interstate highway occupants could only beconducted at exits, relatively fewer vehicles traveling oninterstate highways were observed compared to vehicles onall other roadway types. While twenty-four percent of travelin WV occurs on interstate highways, only approximatelyseventeen percent of weighted observations came from thistype of road. Since drivers and passengers traveling on suchroads are more likely than those on other roadway types towear their safety belts, data were re-weighted to reflect thedistribution of traffic across the function classes. Thus,interstate observations were weighted such that theyconstituted twenty-four percent of the data used to producethe final estimate of statewide belt use, paralleling the proportionof travel that occurs on such roads.
Weighted belt use by all occupants (both drivers and frontseat passengers) on roadways in each of the function classes(r) was estimated using the formula shown in Figure 1. Thestandard deviation of the statewide seat belt use rate wasestimated using the formula displayed in Figure 2. The relativeerror for safety belt use was calculated by dividing the standarderror by the estimate.
Figure 1. Calculation of Statewide Safety BeltUse Rate
Subscripts: Subgroups:i = county B = # beltedj = road type O = # observedk = site V = annual vehicle miles traveled
W = designated sampling weight
Equation for Road Type in County Bijk = number belted at site k, road type j, county i Oijk = number observed at site k, road type j, county i
Pij = O Bijk / O OijkPi = O (Vij * Pij) / O Vij
Equation for StateP= O (Vi * Wi * Pi) / O (Vi * Wi)
where,
Wi = the inverse of the probability of selection in thecounty i
S2(r) = [(1-f)/ x
2] * [m/(m-1)] * [(Σyi
2 - y
2/m) + r
2 (Σxi
2 - x
2/m) – 2r (Σyixi - yx/m)]
r = y/x = Σyi / Σxi
mm
andm = number of clustersy = number wearing safety beltx = number in sample
To estimate the variance of the ratio r=y/x (the proportion of individuals wearing a safety belt), the followingapproximate formula for the variance of r in the ultimate clusters was used (Sudman, 1976, p.187):
m m m
where
Figure 2. Calculation of the Standard Deviation of the Statewide Safety Belt Use Rate
West Virginia Safety Belt Survey, 2008 7
The results of the analysis on the 19,183 vehicle andoccupant observations made in 2008 are presented below.Extensive effort is made to summarize the characteristics ofoccupants, vehicles, and observation sites. The 2008 safetybelt use rate based on the weighted sample of observations isalso provided. In addition to the overall safety belt use rate, adescription of the weighted belt use rate by roadway type andcounty is presented. This section concludes with an analysisof selected characteristics of occupants and observation sitesusing the unweighted sample of observations. The presentationof the results begins with a description of the total number
Results
and percentage of front seat occupants observed.
Total Observations and Selected Occupant, Vehicle, andSite Characteristics
Table 1 displays the total number and percentage ofobserved front seat occupants. As shown in this table,observers recorded safety belt information on 15,679 driversand 3,504 outboard front seat passengers for a total of 19,183observations. These observations were compiled across 95observation sites and 14 counties. As expected, the largestpercentage of observations occurred in the counties with the
Drivers
Passengers
Total
County N % N % N % Berkeley 962 6.1% 235 6.7% 1,197 6.2%
Cabell 1,554 9.9% 386 11.0% 1,940 10.1%
Greenbrier 850 5.4% 148 4.2% 998 5.2%
Harrison 1,443 9.2% 158 4.5% 1,601 8.3%
Kanawha 2,060 13.1% 657 18.8% 2,717 14.2%
Lewis 826 5.3% 194 5.5% 1,020 5.3%
Marshall 497 3.2% 169 4.8% 666 3.5%
Mercer 960 6.1% 104 3.0% 1,064 5.5%
Mineral 636 4.1% 110 3.1% 746 3.9%
Monongalia 1,746 11.1% 201 5.7% 1,947 10.1%
Ohio 592 3.8% 129 3.7% 721 3.8%
Preston 509 3.2% 76 2.2% 585 3.0%
Raleigh 1,738 11.1% 535 15.3% 2,273 11.8%
Wood 1,306 8.3% 402 11.5% 1,708 8.9%
Total 15,679 100.0% 3,504 100.0% 19,183 100.0%
Note: Totals may not add to 100.0% due to rounding. Safety belt information was not able to be recorded in 14observations. This table contains information only on the observations in which safety belt information was obtained.
Table 1. Number and Percentage of Total Observed Front Seat Occupants, 2008(N = 15,693)
Variable
N
%
Occupant/Vehicle Characteristics
Gender Driver Male 8895 57.3 Female 6696 42.7 Unknown 2 0.0 Total 15693 100.0 Passenger Male 1141 32.6 Female 2362 67.4 Unknown 1 0.0 Total 3504 100.0 Vehicle Type Car 7309 46.6 Pickup 3571 22.8 Van 1344 8.6 Utility 3469 22.1 Total 15693 100.0 Site Characteristics Land Use Urban 6662 42.5 Rural 9031 57.5 Total 15693 100.0 Roadway Expressway 5206 33.2 Feeder Route 4329 27.6 Local Service 3517 22.4 Trunk Line 2641 16.8 Total 15693 100.0 Region Eastern Panhandle 1599 10.2 Northern Panhandle 1093 7.0 North Central 5836 37.2 South 7165 45.7 Total 15693 100.0
Table 2. Distribution of selected occupant,vehicle, and site characteristics, 2008
Note: Percents may not add to 100% due to rounding. Thistable contains 14 cases in which safety belt use was not ableto be determined.
largest residential populations. Fourteen percent of allobservations occurred in Kanawha County (14.2%), followedby Raleigh (11.8%), Cabell (10.1%), and Monongalia (10.1%)counties. Eight percent of observations were recorded forWood (8.9%) and Harrison (9.4%) counties.
Four the fourteen counties contained less than five percentof the total number of observations. These counties includedMineral (3.9%), Ohio (3.8%), Marshall (3.4%), and Preston(3.0%). These four counties accounted for nearly fifteenpercent of the total number of observations (14.1%).
The distribution of selected occupant, vehicle, and sitecharacteristics based on the total number of observations arepresented in Table 2. In terms of occupant characteristics,most drivers were male while a greater percentage ofpassengers were female. Of the 15,693 drivers observed, atotal of 8,895 or 57.3% were male compared to 6,696 or 42.7%were female. In contrast, two-thirds of passengers werefemale. Of the 3,504 passengers observed, 67.4% werefemale and 32.6% were male.
Passenger cars were the most common vehicle typeobserved in 2008. Nearly one-half of all vehicles observedwere passenger cars (46.6%), followed by trucks (22.8%)and sport utility vehicles (22.1%). Vans comprised less thanten percent of all vehicles observed (8.6%).
In terms of site characteristics, the largest percentagesof observations were made in rural areas on expressway orfeeder routes and in the southern and north central regions ofthe state. More than half of driver observations occurred inrural areas (57.5%) compared to 42.5% of observations inurban areas. Additionally, most observations also occurredon expressways (33.2%) and feeder routes (27.6%) with only16.8% of observations occurring on trunk lines.
Finally, a vast majority of observations took place in thesouth and north central regions of the state. Over forty percentof driver observations occurred in southern counties (45.7%).Likewise, 37.2% of driver observations occurred in the northcentral area of the state. Less than ten percent ofobservations took place in the eastern (10.2%) and northern(7.0%) panhandle regions of the state. These distributionsare similar to the results of previous observational surveysconducted in WV.
8 West Virginia Safety Belt Survey, 2008
Weighted Safety Belt Use Rate, 2008 The safety belt use rate in West Virginia has continued
to increase each year since 2000. In 2008, the weighted safetybelt use rate reached a near high of 89.5%. This nearly equalto the high of 89.6% achieved in 2007. The 2008 rate is upfrom 49.5% in 2000 and a low of 32.0% in 1992.
Graph 1 shows the rate of safety belt use in WV over theten year period from 1999 to 2008. As shown in this graph,the safety belt use rate was at 51.9% in 1999. Over the next
year, the safety belt use rate declined to a low of 49.5% in2000 prior to increasing each year after 2000. From 2000 to2008, the percentage of motorist wearing safety belts increasedby 40 percentage points from 49.5% in 2000 to 89.5% in 2008.From the low of 32.0% in 1992, the safety belt use rateincreased 57.6 percentage points to 89.6% in 2007 beforesettling at 89.5% in 2008.
West Virginia Safety Belt Survey, 2008 9
Graph 1. Weighted Safety Belt Use Rate in West Virginia, 1999-2008
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 20081999 2000
100
80
60
40
51.9%
89.5%
75.5%
10 West Virginia Safety Belt Survey, 2008
Weighted Safety Belt Use Rate by CountyTable 3 displays the weighted safety belt use rate by county
since 2000. All fourteen counties experienced substantialincreases in the rate of belt use over this 9-year period. In2000, safety belt use rates ranged from a low of 20.8% inGreenbrier County to a high of 71.8% in Monongalia County.2
Other counties with safety belt use rates less than 50.0% in2000 included Mercer (36.2%), Raleigh (47.2%), and Ohio(49.1%).
By 2008, all fourteen counties had a safety belt use rateabove eighty percent with many county usage rates exceeding
ninety percent. Some of the largest gains in belt usage occurredin counties with particularly low safety belt use rates in 2000.For instance, the safety belt use rate for Greenbrier Countyincreased by 69.9 percentage points from a low of 20.8% in2000 to 90.7% in 2008. Similarly, the counties of Mercer(88.7%), Raleigh (91.0%), Marshall (92.0%), Harrison(41.4%), Preston (41.4%), and Ohio (89.6%) all experiencedpercentage point increases of forty percent or greater duringthis 9-year period. Counties with the least amount of changeover this period include Monongalia at 23.4%, Berkeley(29.0%), Kanawha (29.0%), and Wood (27.0%). However,each of these counties had relatively high safety belt usagerates in 2000.
One-half of the fourteen counties had safety belt use ratesabove 90.0% in 2008. These counties included Marshall(92.0%), Monongalia (95.2%), Preston (92.5%), Raleigh
____________
2 Observations sites in McDowell County were replaced with sites randomlyselected in Greenbrier County in 2002. For more information, see footnote1.
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
2008
Percent Difference 2000-2008
Berkeley 59.1% 64.8% 78.3% 74.8% 68.1% 82.9% 83.0% 83.7% 88.1% 29.0% Cabell 57.8% 65.8% 79.7% 77.1% 86.5% 85.9% 90.5% 89.9% 90.0% 32.2% Greenbrier 20.8% 33.8% 64.9% 76.5% 83.2% 87.1% 88.0% 90.3% 90.7% 69.9% Harrison 50.8% 50.4% 77.2% 78.3% 66.8% 81.6% 89.1% 89.9% 92.2% 41.4% Kanawha 57.2% 62.5% 72.9% 67.0% 79.9% 86.5% 87.6% 90.7% 86.2% 29.0% Lewis 53.4% 59.9% 78.8% 75.8% 77.5% 84.7% 86.8% 87.1% 88.5% 35.1% Marshall 51.0% 48.6% 76.9% 70.9% 78.4% 85.8% 93.9% 94.1% 92.0% 41.0% Mercer 36.2% 46.9% 60.1% 69.4% 66.8% 85.2% 89.8% 89.8% 88.7% 52.5% Mineral 54.2% 57.1% 68.5% 70.9% 76.5% 85.7% 88.5% 88.3% 88.2% 34.0% Monongalia 71.8% 47.3% 75.9% 82.4% 84.1% 87.1% 91.1% 93.3% 95.2% 23.4% Ohio 49.1% 49.0% 77.8% 74.7% 81.6% 80.7% 91.8% 92.0% 89.6% 40.5% Preston 51.1% 37.7% 61.8% 78.1% 85.0% 85.7% 89.7% 90.9% 92.5% 41.4% Raleigh 47.2% 55.3% 80.6% 77.5% 79.9% 87.9% 91.2% 90.4% 91.0% 43.8% Wood 61.3% 64.1% 75.6% 71.5% 72.4% 82.4% 83.6% 88.7% 88.3% 27.0%
Statewide 49.5% 52.7% 71.6% 73.7% 75.5% 84.9% 88.5% 89.6% 89.5% 40.0%
Table 3. Weighted Safety Belt Use Rate by County, 2000-2008
West Virginia Safety Belt Survey, 2008 11
(91.0%), Greenbrier (90.7%), Cabell (90.0%), and Harrison(92.2%). Berkeley County had the lowest safety belt userate at 88.1%.
Weighted Safety Belt Use Rate by Road TypeThe safety belt use rate has increased substantially for
every major road type since 2000. Observations wereconducted at four different roadways classifications:expressways, feeder routes, local service roads, and trunklines.
In 2000, vehicle occupants were less likely to be observedwearing a safety belt when traveling on trunk line and feederroutes. Only 35.6% and 41.8% of vehicle occupants on trunkline and feeder routes were observed wearing a safety belt in
2000 respectively. This is compared to 46.8% of vehicleoccupants on local service roads and 51.6% on expressways.As a result, vehicle occupants were considerably more likelyto be wearing a safety belt when traveling on the state’sexpressways compared to other types of roadways.
By 2008, however, there was little difference in theweighted safety belt use rate for vehicle occupants by roadwaytype. Roughly ninety percent of all vehicles observed in 2008had a belted occupant, regardless of road type. Contrary toto 2000, the highest percentage of belt use was found forvehicles traveling on the state’s trunk line routes (91.0%),followed by expressways (90.1%), feeder routes (89.8%),and local routes (87.8%).
100
80
60
40
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Expressway
Feeder
Local
Trunk
Road Type:
Graph 2. Weighted Safety Belt Use Rate by Road Type, 2000-2008
2008
12 West Virginia Safety Belt Survey, 2008
As a result, there has been a notable increase in the rateof safety belt use on all types of roadways in the state since2000. The largest percentage point increases occurred fortrunk lines, increasing from 35.6% in 2000 to 91.0% in 2008.This translates into a 55.4 percentage point increase in theuse of safety belts on trunk lines since the beginning of thisdecade. Large percentage point increases were also foundfor all other types of roadways in WV. These include a 48.0percentage point increase in seat belt use for travelers onfeeder routes, followed by local routes (41.0) and expressways(38.5).
Characteristics of Belted Drivers and PassengersThe previous section presented the weighted results of
safety belt use for the state as well as by county and roadtype. The remaining sections of this report present the resultsof additional analysis using the unweighted sample ofobservations. The purpose of these analyses is to identifyvariation in safety belt usage by occupant and sitecharacteristics as well as vehicle type. It is anticipated thatthis information will help to identify the conditions in whichsafety belts are more or less likely to be used in the state.
Graph 3 displays the unweighted distribution of drivers
0
20
40
60
80
100
Driver Passenger
Yes
No
Note: Driver, N = 15,677; Passenger, N = 3,498. Analysisonly includes cases where gender and belted/non-belted isknown.
Graph 4. Distribution of drivers andpassengers belted by gender, 2008
87.1%93.1%
83.6%
94.6%
Male Female Male Female
Note: Drivers, N = 15,677; Passengers, N = 3,499. Safety belt use was unkown for 2 drivers and 5 passengers.
Graph 3. Distribution of Drivers and Passengers Belted, 2008
Drivers Passengers
No10.4%
No9.0%
Yes89.6%
Yes91.0%
West Virginia Safety Belt Survey, 2008 13
and passengers belted in 2008. As shown in this graph, adetermination of whether a safety belt was being used wasmade on a total of 15,677 drivers and 3,499 passengers. Basedon these observations, roughly the same percentage of driversand passengers were observed wearing a safety belt. Eighty-nine percent of drivers (89.6%) compared to 91.0% ofpassengers were observed wearing a seat belt in 2008. As aresult, approximately ten percent of drivers (10.4%) andpassengers (9.0%) were not belted based on the results ofthis survey.
Drivers and Passengers Belted by GenderGraph 4 displays the results of safety belt use by gender.
The findings illustrate that there are significant genderdifferences in the use of safety belts across gender. Simply
put, males were significantly less likely to use safety beltscompared to females. This held true regardless of whetherthe vehicle occupant was a driver or passenger.
As shown in Graph 4, male drivers were significantly lesslikely than female drivers to be belted (Chi-square = 153.61; p< .001). Over ninety percent of female drivers were observedwearing a safety belt (93.1%) compared to 87.1% of maledrivers. Hence, roughly thirteen percent of male drivers wereobserved not wearing a seat belt in 2008 (12.9%).
A similar pattern was present for vehicle passengers.Males were significantly less likely than females to be wearinga safety belt when traveling as a vehicle passenger (Chi-square= 114.76; p < .001). Eleven percent fewer males (83.6%)were observed wearing a safety belt compared to females(94.6%), when traveling as a passenger. As a result, over
VehicleType
CarTruck
VanUtility
Land Use
Roadway
Region
Urban
ExpresswayFeeder RouteLocal Service
Trunk Line
Eastern PanhandleNorthern Panhandle
North Central
South
Rural
Graph 5. Proportion of Drivers Belted by Vehicle Type and Site Characteristics, 2008
Note: N = 15,677; *** p < .001
***
***
***
20 400 60 80 100
14 West Virginia Safety Belt Survey, 2008
sixteen percent of male passengers were observed not wearinga seat belt (16.4%) compared to only 5.4% of femalepassengers.
Drivers Belted by Vehicle Type and Site CharacteristicsGraph 5 displays the proportion of drivers belted by vehicle
type and various site characteristics. The results indicatethat there was substantial variation in drivers belted by vehicleand roadway type as well as region of the state. With theexception of land use, there were significant differences inthe likelihood of drivers wearing safety belts across thesefactors. For instance, the analysis of drivers belted by vehicletype showed that individuals driving trucks were significantlyless likely to be wearing a seat belt compared to drivers of
other types of vehicles (Chi-square = 161.18; p < .001).Approximately eighty-five percent of truck drivers werewearing a seat belt (84.7%), compared to roughly ninetypercent of drivers traveling in other types of vehicles. Driverstraveling in utility vehicles were the most likely group to bewearing a safety belt in 2008 (93.3%), followed by drivers invans (93.1%) and passenger cars (89.7%).
Significant difference in safety belt use among driverswas also found for type of roadway and region of the state.Drivers of vehicles traveling on local service roads weresignificantly less likely to be wearing a safety belt comparedto drivers on other classes of roadways (Chi-square = 19.34;p < .001). While the differences were less pronounced thanvehicle type, only 87.8% of drivers traveling on local service
CarTruck
Utility
Urban
ExpresswayFeeder RouteLocal Service
Trunk Line
Eastern PanhandleNorthern Panhandle
Van
Rural
North CentralSouth
VehicleType
Land Use
Roadway
Region
***
***
Note: N = 3,499; *** p < .001; ** p < .01
Graph 6. Proportion of Passengers Belted by Vehicle Type and Site Characteristics, 2008
20 400 60 80 100
*
West Virginia Safety Belt Survey, 2008 15
roads were wearing a seat belt in 2008. This is compared to89.8% of drivers traveling on feeder routes, 91.0% on trunklines, and 90.1% of expressways. It is important to note,however, that these significant differences are based onunweighted estimates of seat belt use by roadway type. Theweighted results were similar, but less pronounced for driversbelted by road type.
Finally, the findings presented in Graph 5 further showdifferences in seat belt usage between the different regions inthe state. Drivers traveling in the eastern panhandle weresignificantly less likely to be wearing a seat belt in 2008compared to other regions in the state (Chi-square = 23.32; p< .001). Roughly eighty-five percent of drivers in the easternpanhandle were wearing a safety belt in 2008 (87.4%). Atthe same time, however, drivers in the north central region ofthe state were significantly more likely to be wearing a seatbeat based on the 2008 observations. Greater than ninetypercent of drivers in the central region of the state were wearingsafety belts in 2008 (91.0%). Drivers in the north panhandle(89.8%) and southern regions (89.0%) of the state were nearlyequally likely to be wearing a safety belt during this sameperiod. No significant difference was found between driversobserved in urban and rural areas of the state and safety beltuse.
Passengers Belted by Vehicle Type and Site CharacteristicsSimilar to the previous analysis, Graph 6 displays the results
for passengers. Consistent the analysis of drivers, significantdifferences were found in the use of safety belts for vehicleand roadway type and region of the state. However, therewas not a significant difference in belt usage by land use.
As shown in Graph 6, passengers traveling in trucks weresignificantly less likely to be wearing a seat belt compared toother vehicle types (Chi-square = 55.47; p < .001). Theseresults are similar to what was observed for drivers. Only84.6% of truck passengers were observed wearing a seatbelt in 2008, compared to more than ninety percent ofpassengers traveling in other vehicle types. Passengerstraveling in sport utility vehicles and vans were most likely tobe observed wearing a seat belt in 2008 at 94.2% and 94.8%,respectively.
Similar to the results for drivers, a significant differencein safety belt usage among passengers was observed for type
of roadway and region of the state. Passengers on localservice roads were least likely to be observed wearing a safetybelt in 2008 (88.5%). Passengers were belted over ninetypercent of time for all other road types.
Safety belt use among vehicle passengers also significantlyvaried depending on the region of the state (Chi-square =21.29; p < .001). Consistent with driver seat belt use,passengers traveling in the northern panhandle weresignificantly more likely to be wearing a safety belt in 2008.Nearly ninety-five percent of passengers in the northernpanhandle were observed wearing a seat belt (94.6%). Onthe contrary, less than ninety percent of passengers wereobserved wearing a seat belt in the southern region of thestate (89.0%). Slightly greater than ninety percent ofpassengers were observed wearing a seat belt in the northcentral (93.3%) and eastern panhandle areas (92.2%) of thestate in 2008.
16 West Virginia Safety Belt Survey, 2008
ReferencesAlthouse, R., Heffner, G. & Elliot E. (2001). 2000 Survey of Safety Belt Use in West Virginia. West VirginiaUniversity, Survey Research Center. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University.
Glassbrenner, D., and Ye, J. (2007). Seat Belt Use in 2006 – Use Rates in States and Territories. DOT HS 810 690.Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
NHTSA (2005). Traffic Safety Occupant Protection Fact Sheet – 2005 Data. DOT HS 810 621. Washington, DC:National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
NHTSA (2007a). Strengthening Seat Belt Use Laws – Traffic Safety Facts. DOT HS 810 729W. Washington, DC:National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
NHTSA (2007b). Traffic Safety Facts – A Brief Statistical Summary. DOT HS 810 690. Washington, DC: NationalHighway Traffic Safety Administration.
Sudman, S. (1976). Applied Sampling. New York: Academic Press.
Appendices
Appendix A: Safety Belt Observational Survey Counties and Regions
County Selection Procedures The following summary of procedures for county selection was acquired from the West Virginia University’s Survey Research Center (Althouse et al., 2001). Some regions of the state were over-sampled relative to the proportion of the state population that resides there. West Virginia’s population at the time when the original sample was drawn = 1,793,477. To ensure their representation in the sample, the five larges counties (Cabell, Kanawha, Monongalia, Raleigh and Wood) were sampled with probability 1.00. The results were adjusted prior to analysis by the use of differential weighting to take this into account: data from each of the 14 counties were given a weight equal to the inverse of their probability of selection, ensuring proper representation of data from each county.
South 22 Counties North
Central 21
Counties
County Population Cumulative
Probability of Selection in Stratum County Population Cumulative
Probability of Selection in Stratum
*Kanawha 207,619 1.00 *Wood 89,915 1.00 *Cabell 96,827 1.00 *Monongalia 75,509 1.00
*Raleigh 76,819 1.00 *Harrison 69,371 69,371 0.54 *Mercer 64,980 64,980 0.24 Marion 57,249 126,620 0.45 Fayette 47,952 112,932 0.18 *Preston 29,037 155,657 0.24 Logan 43,032 155,964 0.16 Randolph 27,803 183,460 0.21
Putnam 42,835 198,799 0.16 Jackson 25,938 209,398 0.21 Wayne 41,636 240,435 0.16 Upsur 22,867 232,265 0.18
McDowell 35,233 275,668 0.14 Wetzel 19,258 251,523 0.15 *Greenbrier 34,693 310,361 0.12 *Lewis 17,223 268,746 0.15
Mingo 33,739 344,100 0.12 Barbour 15,699 284,445 0.12 Wyoming 28,990 373090 0.10 Taylor 15,144 299,589 0.12 Nicolas 26,775 399,865 0.10 Roane 15,120 314,709 0.12 Boone 25,870 425,735 0.10 Ritchie 10,233 324,942 0.09 Mason 25,178 450,913 0.10 Tyler 9,796 334,738 0.09 Lincoln 21,382 472,295 0.08 Calhoun 7,885 342,623 0.06
Summers 14,204 486,499 0.06 Tucker 7,728 350,351 0.06 Braxton 12,998 499,497 0.04 Gilmer 7,669 358,020 0.06 Monroe 12,406 511,903 0.04 Pleasants 7,546 365,566 0.06 Webster 10,729 522,632 0.04 Doddridge 6,994 372,560 0.06
Clay 9,983 532,615 0.04 Wirt 5,192 377,752 0.03 Pocahontas 9,008 541,623 0.04
Total 922,888 541,623 Total 540,176 377,752
Proportion of Population (922,888/1,793,477) = 51% Proportion of Sample (5/14 Counties) = 36%
Proportion of Population (540,176/1,793,477) = 30% Proportion of Sample (5/14 Counties) = 36%
Northern Panhandle 8 Counties Eastern
Panhandle 4 Counties
County Population Cumulative
Probability of Selection in Stratum County Population Cumulative
Probability of Selection in Stratum
*Berkeley 59,253 59,253 0.66 *Ohio 50,871 50,871 0.68 Jefferson 35,926 95,179 0.40 *Marshall 37,356 88,227 0.50 *Mineral 26,697 121,876 0.30 Hancock 35,233 123,460 0.46
Hampshire 16,498 138,374 0.18 Brooke 26,992 150,452 0.36 Morgan 12,128 150,502 0.14 Hardy 10,977 161,479 0.12 Grant 10,428 171,907 0.12
Pendleton 8,054 179,961 0.08
Total 179,961 179,961 Total 150,452 150,452 Proportion of Population (179,961/1,793,477) = 10% Proportion of Sample (2/14 Counties) = 14%
Proportion of Population (150,452/1,793,477) = 8% Proportion of Sample (2/14 Counties) = 14%
Appendix B: County Populations and Probability of Selection
Appendix C: Safety Belt Observational Survey Site ListS
ite#
Day
Co
un
tyM
ap#
Beg
inT
ime
En
dT
ime
Urb
anC
lass
Lo
cati
on
18S
unB
erke
ley
12:
30 P
M4:
30 P
MR
ural
Exp
wy
181
Nor
thbo
und
Exi
t 12-
WV
45
(Mar
tinsv
ille)
28M
onB
erke
ley
28:
00 A
M10
:00
AM
Rur
alE
xpw
y18
1 so
uthb
ound
Exi
t 23-
US
11
(Fai
ling
Wat
er)
38M
onB
erke
ley
32:
30 P
M4:
30 P
MR
ural
Fee
der
WV
45
at In
ters
ectio
n w
ith C
ount
y 45
/2 a
nd C
ount
y 45
/348
Tue
sB
erke
ley
48:
00 A
M10
:00
AM
Rur
alLo
cal
Cou
nty
Rou
te ¼
(ea
stbo
und)
at I
nter
sect
ion
with
Cou
nty
Rou
te 1
(R
oute
4 e
nds
at In
ters
ectio
n)58
Mon
Ber
kele
y4
10:0
0 A
M12
:00
AM
Rur
alLo
cal
Cou
nty
Rou
te 1
2 at
Inte
rsec
tion
with
US
11
68T
ues
Ber
kele
y5
10:0
0 A
M12
:00
AM
Rur
alT
runk
WV
9 a
t Int
erse
ctio
n w
ith C
ount
y 4/
13 (
9/13
) ap
pear
s to
hav
e 2
inte
rsec
tions
at 9
)78
Sat
Ber
kele
y6
12:3
0 P
M2:
30 P
MU
rban
Fee
der
WV
45
at In
ters
ectio
n w
ith U
S 1
1 in
Mar
tinsv
ille
(Wes
tbou
nd o
nly)
88M
onB
erke
ley
712
:30
PM
2:30
PM
Urb
anLo
cal
Cou
nty
Rou
te 1
0/1
(Eas
tbou
nd o
nly)
at I
nter
sect
ion
with
US
11
98S
atC
abel
l8
12:3
0 P
M2:
30 A
MR
ural
Exp
wy
WV
2 a
t int
erse
ctio
n w
ith c
ount
y 7,
Nor
th o
f Bar
bour
svill
e10
8T
ues
Cab
ell
8710
:00
AM
12:0
0 A
MR
ural
Fee
der
WV
10a
at i
nter
sect
ion
with
US
60
118
Sun
Cab
ell
92:
30 P
M4:
30 P
MR
ural
Loca
lC
ount
y R
oute
21
(Wes
tbou
nd)
at in
ters
ectio
n w
ith C
ount
y R
oute
112
8T
ues
Cab
ell
8812
:30
PM
2:30
PM
Rur
alLo
cal
I64
Eas
tbou
nd, E
xit 1
1 -
WV
10
(Hal
Gre
er B
oule
vard
)13
8W
edC
abel
l10
8:00
AM
10:0
0 A
MU
rban
Exp
wy
WV
2 3
rd A
venu
e an
d 20
th S
tree
t in
Hun
tingt
on (
WV
2 tu
rns
into
US
60)
148
Wed
Cab
ell
1110
:00
AM
12:0
0 A
MU
rban
Fee
der
WV
106
at i
nter
sect
ion
with
WV
2 in
Hun
tingt
on15
8T
ues
Cab
ell
892:
30 P
M4:
30 A
MR
ural
Loca
lC
ity R
oute
32/
69 (
8th
Ave
nue)
at 2
0th
Str
eet i
n H
untin
gton
168
Tue
sC
abel
l90
8:00
AM
10:0
0 A
MU
rban
Tru
nkW
V 1
0 (H
al G
reer
Blv
d.)
at in
ters
ectio
n w
ith 5
th A
venu
e in
Hun
tingt
on17
8W
edH
arris
on12
8:00
AM
10:0
0 A
MR
ural
Exp
wy
US
50
at In
ters
ectio
n w
ith c
ount
y 33
, Wes
t of C
lark
sbur
g18
8T
hur
Har
rison
1310
:00
AM
12:0
0 A
MR
ural
Fee
der
WV
76
at in
ters
ectio
n w
ith U
S 5
0 (E
ast o
f Brid
gepo
rt)
198
Wed
Har
rison
1410
:00
AM
12:0
0 A
MR
ural
Loca
lC
ount
y 11
at C
ount
y 9
(Wils
onbu
rg)
208
Sun
Har
rison
152:
30 P
M4:
30 P
MR
ural
Loca
lC
ount
y ro
ute
24 (
Nor
thbo
und)
at i
nter
sect
ion
with
US
19
(Rou
te 2
4 en
ds a
t int
erse
ctio
n)21
8S
atH
arris
on16
12:3
0 P
M2:
30 P
MR
ural
Tru
nkW
V 2
0 at
inte
rsec
tion
with
Cou
nty
922
8T
hur
Har
rison
178:
00 A
M10
:00
AM
Urb
anE
xpw
y17
9 E
xit 1
19 (
Cla
rksb
urg)
nor
thbo
und
or S
outh
boun
d (E
xit 1
19 m
arks
inte
rsec
tion
with
US
50)
238
Wed
Har
rison
182:
30 P
M4:
30 P
MU
rban
Exp
wy
US
50
at in
ters
ectio
n w
ith U
S 2
0 in
Cla
rksb
urg
248
Wed
Har
rison
1912
:30
PM
2:30
PM
Urb
anF
eede
rU
S 1
9 at
inte
rsec
tion
with
WV
in C
lark
sbur
g25
8S
unK
anaw
ha20
2:30
PM
4:30
PM
Rur
alE
xpw
yU
S 1
19 in
ters
ectio
n w
ith W
V 1
14 in
Big
Chi
mne
y26
8W
edK
anaw
ha21
2:30
PM
4:30
PM
Rur
alF
eede
rW
V 6
1 at
inte
rsec
tion
with
WV
94
in M
arm
et27
8S
atK
anaw
ha91
12:3
0 P
M2:
30 P
MR
ural
Loca
lC
ount
y R
oute
21
(Nor
thbo
und)
at i
nter
sect
ion
WV
622
288
Thu
rK
anaw
ha22
8:00
AM
10:0
0 A
MU
rban
Exp
wy
I77E
xit 9
9 G
reen
brie
r S
tree
t (W
V 1
14)
in C
harle
ston
298
Thu
rK
anaw
ha23
10:0
0 A
M12
:00
AM
Urb
anE
xpw
yI7
9 E
xit 1
02 (
Wes
tmor
elan
d S
tree
t) in
Cha
rlest
on30
8M
onK
anaw
ha92
10:0
0 A
M12
:00
AM
Urb
anF
eede
rU
S 6
0 at
inte
rsec
tion
with
WV
35
Wes
t of S
t. A
lban
s31
8W
edK
anaw
ha93
12:3
0 P
M2:
30 P
MU
rban
Loca
lC
ity R
oute
10/
2532
8M
onK
anaw
ha94
8:00
AM
10:0
0 A
MU
rban
Tru
nkC
ount
y R
oute
9 a
t int
erse
ctio
n w
ith c
ount
y R
oute
3, s
outh
of S
t. A
lban
s33
8T
hur
Lew
is24
9:00
AM
10:3
0 A
MR
ural
Exp
wy
I79,
exi
t 99
at U
S 3
334
8T
hur
Lew
is25
7:30
AM
9:00
AM
Rur
alE
xpw
yU
S 3
3 at
inte
rsec
tion
with
Cou
nty
15 (
from
Sou
th)
and
Cou
nty
36 (
from
Nor
th)
in H
irner
368
Thu
rLe
wis
2610
:30
AM
12:0
0 A
MR
ural
Loca
lC
ount
y R
oute
14
at in
ters
ectio
n w
ith U
S 1
1937
8F
riLe
wis
272:
00 P
M3:
30 P
MR
ural
Loca
lC
ount
y R
oute
1 (
nort
hbou
nd)
at in
ters
ectio
n w
ith C
ount
y R
oute
1/6
(B
utch
ersv
ille,
by
Jack
son
Mill
)38
8T
hur
Lew
is28
12:3
0 P
M2:
00 P
MU
rban
Loca
lU
S 1
9 at
inte
rsec
tion
with
US
33/
119
in W
esto
n39
8T
hur
Mar
shal
l29
12:3
0 P
M2:
00 P
MR
ural
Exp
wy
US
250
at i
nter
sect
ion
with
US
88
408
Fri
Mar
shal
l30
7:30
PM
9:00
AM
Rur
alE
xpw
yW
V 2
at C
ount
y R
oute
29,
Bur
ch R
idge
roa
d (F
rank
lin, s
outh
of M
ound
svill
e)41
8T
hur
Mar
shal
l31
2:00
PM
3:30
PM
Rur
alF
eede
rU
S 2
50 a
t int
erse
ctio
n w
ith W
V 8
9142
8S
atM
arsh
all
323:
30 P
M5:
00 P
MR
ural
Loca
lC
ount
y R
oute
25
at in
ters
ectio
n w
ith U
S 2
50 (
Cam
eron
)43
8T
hur
Mar
shal
l33
10:3
0 P
M12
:00
AM
Rur
alLo
cal
Cou
nty
Rou
te 8
8/12
at i
nter
sect
ion
with
WV
88
(eas
t of B
enw
ood)
(B
ack-
up 8
8/13
)44
8F
riM
arsh
all
349:
00 A
M10
:30
AM
Urb
anE
xpw
yW
V 2
at i
nter
sect
ion
with
250
/88
in M
ound
svill
e45
8T
ues
Gre
enbr
ier
758:
00 A
M10
:00
AM
Rur
alF
eede
rW
V R
oute
3 a
t int
erse
ctio
n w
ith C
ount
y R
oute
3/2
(A
lder
son
Cem
eter
y R
oad)
468
Tue
sG
reen
brie
r76
10:0
0 A
M12
:00
AM
Rur
alLo
cal
Cou
nty
Rou
te 4
3 at
inte
rsec
tion
with
Cou
nty
Rou
te 5
8 (lo
cate
d of
f Rou
te 6
3 w
here
the
Gre
enbr
ier
Riv
er le
aves
Rou
te 6
3)
Appendix C: Safety Belt Observational Survey Site List (Continued)
478
Tue
sG
reen
brie
r77
12:3
0 P
M2:
30 P
MR
ural
Tru
nkU
S R
oute
219
at i
nter
sect
ion
with
Gyp
sy M
ount
ain
Roa
d (C
ount
y R
oute
24)
loca
ted
betw
een
Fai
rlea
and
Ron
ceve
rte
488
Tue
sG
reen
brie
r78
2:30
PM
4:30
PM
Rur
alT
runk
Rou
te 2
0 at
inte
rsec
tion
with
Sim
ms
Mou
ntai
n R
oad,
loca
ted
sout
h of
Rai
nelle
and
Lill
y P
ark.
498
Wed
Mer
cer
7910
:00
AM
12:0
0 A
MR
ural
Exp
wy
US
19
at in
ters
ectio
n w
ith 1
9/29
sou
th o
f Prin
ceto
n50
8W
edM
erce
r80
12:3
0 P
M2:
30 P
MR
ural
Exp
wy
US
460
at i
nter
sect
ion
with
Cou
nty
Rou
te 3
4/1
sout
h of
Prin
ceto
n51
8W
edM
erce
r81
8:00
AM
10:0
0 A
MR
ural
Fee
der
WV
10
at in
ters
ectio
n w
ith C
ount
y R
oute
6 (
Lash
mee
t)52
8W
edM
erce
r82
2:30
PM
4:30
PM
Rur
alF
eede
rW
V 1
12 a
t int
erse
ctio
n w
ith C
ount
y R
oute
219
/6 (
east
of O
akva
le)
538
Thu
rM
erce
r83
8:00
AM
10:0
0 A
MR
ural
Loca
lC
ount
y R
oute
25
at in
ters
ectio
n w
ith U
S 1
954
8T
hur
Mer
cer
8410
:00
AM
12:0
0 A
MR
ural
Tru
nkW
V 2
0 at
inte
rsec
tion
with
US
52
558
Sun
Mer
cer
8512
:30
PM
2:30
PM
Urb
anE
xpw
yU
S 4
60 a
t int
erse
ctio
n w
ith C
ount
y R
oute
21/
1 in
Blu
efie
ld56
8S
unM
erce
r86
2:30
PM
4:30
PM
Urb
anT
runk
US
52
at in
ters
ectio
n w
ith W
V 5
98 (
east
of C
umbe
rland
Roa
d in
Blu
efie
ld)
578
Wed
Min
eral
352:
00 P
M3:
30 P
MR
ural
Loca
lC
ount
y R
oute
28/
5 (N
orth
boun
d) a
t int
erse
ctio
n w
ith C
ount
y R
oute
28
588
Wed
Min
eral
369:
00 A
M10
:30
AM
Rur
alT
runk
US
220
at i
nter
sect
ion
with
US
50
598
Wed
Min
eral
377:
30 A
M9:
00 A
MR
ural
Tru
nkW
V 9
3 at
inte
rsec
tion
with
US
50
608
Wed
Min
eral
3810
:30
AM
12:0
0 A
MR
ural
Tru
nkW
V 9
72 a
t int
erse
ctio
n w
ith U
S 2
2061
8W
edM
iner
al39
12:3
0 P
M2:
00 P
MU
rban
Fee
der
WV
46
at in
ters
ectio
n w
ith U
S 2
2062
8W
edM
iner
al40
3:30
PM
5:00
PM
Urb
anT
runk
WV
28
at e
ntra
nce
to C
umbe
rland
Cou
nty
Airp
ort (
Cou
nty
28/1
1) 2
163
8W
edM
onon
galia
412:
30 P
M4:
30 P
MU
rban
Exp
wy
I68
at E
xit 4
(W
V 7
, Sab
rato
n)64
8T
hur
Mon
onga
lia42
10:0
0 A
M12
:00
AM
Urb
anE
xpw
yI7
9 at
Exi
t 152
(U
S 1
9, W
esto
ver)
658
Wed
Mon
onga
lia43
12:3
0 P
M2:
30 P
MU
rban
Fee
der
WV
7 a
t int
erse
ctio
n w
ith C
ount
y 75
Del
lslo
w66
8S
atM
onon
galia
4410
:00
AM
12:0
0 A
MU
rban
Loca
lC
ount
y R
oute
75/
2 at
inte
rsec
tion
with
Cou
nty
Rou
te 7
567
8F
riM
onon
galia
452:
30 P
M4:
30 P
MU
rban
Tru
nkU
S 1
19 a
t int
erse
ctio
n w
ith W
V 7
0568
8F
riM
onon
galia
4612
:30
PM
2:30
PM
Rur
alF
eede
rW
V 7
05 a
t int
erse
ctio
n w
ith V
an V
oorh
is69
8S
atM
onon
galia
478:
00 A
M10
:00
AM
Rur
alLo
cal
City
rou
te 4
7/89
at U
nive
rsity
Ave
nue
(in M
orga
ntow
n, E
vans
dale
Driv
e ne
ar M
cDon
alds
)70
8T
hur
Mon
onga
lia48
8:00
AM
10:0
0 A
MR
ural
Tru
nkU
S 1
19 a
t int
erse
ctio
n w
ith U
S 1
971
8M
onO
hio
497:
30 A
M9:
00 A
MR
ural
Exp
wy
I70,
Exi
t 1 (
Cou
nty
41)
728
Tue
sO
hio
503:
30 P
M5:
00 P
MR
ural
Loca
lC
ount
y R
oute
25
at in
ters
ectio
n w
ith W
V 8
873
8M
onO
hio
5110
:30
AM
12:0
0 A
MU
rban
Exp
wy
I470
, Exi
t 1 (
US
250
)74
8T
ues
Ohi
o52
2:00
PM
3:30
PM
Urb
anE
xpw
yW
V 2
at i
nter
sect
ion
with
12t
h S
tree
t in
Whe
elin
g75
8M
onO
hio
539:
00 P
M10
:30
PM
Urb
anF
eede
rW
V 8
8 at
inte
rsec
tion
with
US
40
768
Tue
sO
hio
5412
:30
PM
2:00
PM
Urb
anLo
cal
(Use
bac
k-up
, 252
is c
lose
d) N
orth
Hur
on a
t US
40
778
Mon
Pre
ston
558:
00 A
M10
:00
AM
Rur
alE
xpw
yI6
8, E
xit 2
3 (B
ruce
ton
Mill
s)78
8M
onP
rest
on56
10:0
0 A
M12
:00
AM
Rur
alF
eede
rC
ount
y 70
at i
nter
sect
ion
with
WV
26
in T
unne
lton
798
Tue
sP
rest
on57
2:30
PM
4:30
PM
Rur
alF
eede
rW
V 7
at i
nter
sect
ion
with
WV
26
in K
ingw
ood
808
Tue
sP
rest
on58
12:3
0 P
M2:
30 P
MR
ural
Loca
lC
ount
y R
oute
59
at W
V 2
6 in
Tun
nelto
n81
8S
atR
alei
gh59
2:30
PM
4:30
PM
Rur
alE
xpw
yI6
4 E
xit 1
24 (
US
19,
Eas
t Bec
kley
)82
8F
riR
alei
gh60
8:00
AM
10:0
0 A
MR
ural
Exp
wy
US
19
at in
ters
ectio
n w
ith W
V 3
(S
hady
Spr
ing,
Sou
th o
f Bec
kley
)83
8S
atR
alei
gh61
8:00
AM
10:0
0 A
MR
ural
Fee
der
WV
41
at in
ters
ectio
n w
ith W
V 6
184
8S
atR
alei
gh62
10:0
0 A
M12
:00
AM
Rur
alF
eede
rW
V 4
1 at
inte
rsec
tion
with
WV
41/
24, (
isn'
t mar
ked;
8/1
0 m
ile s
outh
of 4
1 &
6 in
ters
ectio
n)85
8F
riR
alei
gh63
2:30
PM
4:30
PM
Rur
alLo
cal
Cou
nty
Rou
te 1
at i
nter
sect
ion
with
Cou
nty
Rou
te 7
(In
Cirt
svill
e I7
7)86
8F
riR
alei
gh64
12:3
0 P
M2:
30 P
MU
rban
Exp
wy
I77
Exi
t 44
(WV
3, B
eckl
ey)
878
Sat
Ral
eigh
6512
:30
PM
2:30
PM
Urb
anF
eede
rW
V 4
1 at
inte
rsec
tion
US
19
888
Fri
Ral
eigh
6610
:00
AM
12:0
0 A
MU
rban
Tru
nkW
V 3
at i
nter
sect
ion
with
WV
16
in B
eckl
ey89
8W
edW
ood
6712
:30
PM
2:30
PM
Rur
alE
xpw
yI7
7, E
xit 1
79 (
WV
2, E
mer
son
Ave
nue)
908
Wed
Woo
d68
2:30
PM
4:30
PM
Rur
alE
xpw
yU
S 5
0 at
inte
rsec
tion
with
Cou
nty
50/3
6 an
d C
ount
y 50
/37
near
Mur
phyt
own
918
Wed
Woo
d69
10:0
0 A
M12
:00
AM
Rur
alF
eede
rW
V 1
4 at
inte
rsec
tion
with
WV
31
928
Wed
Woo
d70
8:00
AM
10:0
0 A
MR
ural
Fee
der
WV
31
at in
ters
ectio
n w
ith W
V 1
493
8M
onW
ood
7112
:30
PM
2:30
PM
Rur
alLo
cal
Cou
nty
Rou
te 2
1 (N
orth
boun
d) a
t int
erse
ctio
n w
ith W
V 1
494
8S
unW
ood
7210
:00
AM
12:0
0 A
MU
rban
Exp
wy
US
50
at in
ters
ectio
n w
ith 1
3th
Str
eet i
n P
arke
rsbu
rg95
8S
unW
ood
738:
00 A
M10
:00
AM
Urb
anF
eede
rW
V 4
7 at
inte
rsec
tion
with
US
50
968
Mon
Woo
d74
2:30
PM
4:30
PM
Urb
anLo
cal
Cou
nty
rout
e 32
at i
nter
sect
ion
with
WV
14
in P
arke
rsbu
rg
Safety Belt Observer Instruction Form Eligible vehicles need to have at least four tires and be one of the following: Passenger automobile,
pickup truck, recreational vehicle, jeep or van (private, public and commercial). Pickup trucks should be coded “truck.” Jeeps, Broncos, Blazers and other vehicles of similar type should be coded "SUV." Do not include straight trucks (like a UPS truck) or tractor-trailers. Eligible vehicles should be observed regardless of the state in which they are registered. Belt use will be observed for front seat occupants only. Observe and record data for the driver and
passenger in the right front seat. If there is more than one front seat passenger, observe only the “outside” passenger. Do not record data for passengers in the back seat or for a third passenger riding in the middle of the front seat. If a child is present in the front seat in a child restraint seat, do not record anything. However,
children riding in the front seat, regardless of age, who are not in child restraint seats should be observed as any other front seat passenger. Each observation period will last for 45 minutes.
The following procedures will be used in conducting observations of belt use: 1. As you observe an eligible vehicle, record the type of vehicle (car, truck, sport utility, van), sex (male
or female) and restrained by shoulder belt (yes or no) of the front seat occupants (driver and front seat “outside” passenger only).
2. If you notice a lap belt in use without a shoulder belt, it should be recorded as not restrained. Only
shoulder belts are to be counted. 3. If the vehicle is equipped with shoulder belts but the person has the shoulder strap under his/her arm
or behind the back, this should be recorded as not restrained. 4. Observe belt use ONLY for the lane(s) indicated on the site maps provided to you. The lane(s) are
indicated by arrows on the site maps. 5. In many situations, it will be possible to observe every vehicle in the designated lane. However, if
traffic is moving too fast to observe every vehicle, you should determine a focal point up the road in the appropriate lane. Observe the next vehicle to pass the focal point after the last vehicle has been coded.
6. Do not observe if it is raining, or if there is fog or inclement weather. If you arrive at a site and it
begins to rain, do not collect data in the rain. Find a dry place and wait 15 minutes to see if the rain stops. If the rain stops, start observing again and extend the observation period to make up for the time missed. Otherwise, you will have to reschedule the site. (Note: rain means real rain, not light fog, or drizzle, or mist).
7. If more than one data sheet is used, staple sheets together at the end of the observation period and
note the number of sheets used at the top of the data form. 8. It may happen that the site you are assigned is seriously compromised due to construction. If this
occurs you may move one block in any direction on the same street such that you are observing the same stream of traffic that would have normally been observed had there been no construction. If moving one block will not solve the problem, then do not observe. An alternate site will be selected and observed on some future date.
Appendix D: Safety Belt Observer Instructions
Safety Belt Observational Survey Data Collection Form COUNTY NAME:_________________________ SITE NUMBER:__________ SITE NOTES:__________________________________________________________________________________________ WEATHER CONDITIONS (Circle one): DATE: _______ - _______ - _______ 1) Clear/Sunny 2) Light Rain 3) Cloudy 4) Fog 5) Clear But Wet
START TIME:_____________ END TIME:_____________ DRIVER PASSENGER DRIVER PASSENGER
Veh. #
Vehicle C = car T = pick up S = suv V = van
Sex M = male F = female N/S = unsure
Use Y = yes N = no
Sex M = male F = female N/S = unsure
Use Y = yes N = no
Veh. #
Vehicle C = car T = pick up S = suv V = van
Sex M = male F = female N/S = unsure
Use Y = yes N = no
Sex M = male F = female N/S = unsure
Use Y = yes N = no
1 26
2 27
3 28
4 29
5 30
6 31
7 32
8 33
9 34
10 35
11 36
12 37
13 38
14 39
15 40
16 41
17 42
18 43
19 44
20 45
21 46
22 47
23 48
24 49
25 50
2006 WV OBSERVATIONAL SEAT BELT SURVEY FORM 2002
Page:______of______
Appendix E: Observational Survey Data Collection Form