• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Foreword
 Abstract
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 List of Figures
 Acknowledgement
 Summary
 Introduction
 Objectives
 Procedure
 Findings
 Conclusion
 Reference
 Tables
 1990 observational survey coding...














Group Title: Industry report - University of Florida Florida Agricultural Market Research Center ; 90-3
Title: 1990 observational survey of seat belt usage in Florida
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027559/00001
 Material Information
Title: 1990 observational survey of seat belt usage in Florida
Series Title: Industry report - University of Florida Florida Agricultural Market Research Center ; 90-3
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Degner, Robert L.
Mack, Stephenie K.
Moss, Susan D.
Publisher: Florida Agricultural Market Research Center, University of Florida
Publication Date: 1990
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027559
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Foreword
        Page i
    Abstract
        Page i
    Table of Contents
        Page ii
    List of Tables
        Page iii
        Page iv
    List of Figures
        Page v
    Acknowledgement
        Page vi
    Summary
        Page vii
        Page viii
    Introduction
        Page 1
    Objectives
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
    Procedure
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
    Findings
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
    Conclusion
        Page 32
        Page 33
    Reference
        Page 34
    Tables
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
    1990 observational survey coding sheet
        Page 43
        Page 44
Full Text





Industry Report 90-3


1990 Observational Survey
of Seat Belt Usage
in Florida





Bureau of Public Safety Management


by


I "' 'Scienrce


I ?Io


Robert L. Degner
Stephenie K Mack
Susan D. Moss


University of Florida


/ Bge


September 1990
















1990 Observational Survey
of Seat Belt Usage in Florida




Project Number 90-05-LE-304-10




Final Report




Prepared by

Dr. Robert L. Degner,
Stephenie K. Mack and
Susan D. Moss





The Florida Agricultural Market Research Center
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32601
FAMRC Industry Report 90-3


September 1990









FORWARD


This report was prepared for the Bureau of Public Safety Management,

Department of Community Affairs, State of Florida, in cooperation with the

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the U.S. Department of

Transportation.

The conclusions and opinions expressed in these reports are those of the

subgrantee, and do not necessarily represent those of the State of Florida,

Department of Community Affairs, Bureau of Public Safety Management, Division

of Emergency Management, the U.S. Department of Transportation, or any other

agency of the state or federal government.


ABSTRACT


An observational survey of seat belt use in Florida was conducted in

June and July 1990. Observations were made at 75 randomly selected traffic

count locations. The sample was stratified by federal functional classifica-

tion with strata weighted by estimates of vehicle miles travelled.

Statewide, seat belt usage was slightly over 40 percent. Vehicles on rural

and urban interstates had the highest usage rates, with 53.5 and 47.4 percent

respectively. Lowest usage was on rural minor arterials, where 25 percent

were wearing seat belts. Blacks and Hispanics had significantly lower usage

rates than whites, and females had higher usage rates than males.

Key Words: safety, automobile, seat belt use









FORWARD


This report was prepared for the Bureau of Public Safety Management,

Department of Community Affairs, State of Florida, in cooperation with the

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the U.S. Department of

Transportation.

The conclusions and opinions expressed in these reports are those of the

subgrantee, and do not necessarily represent those of the State of Florida,

Department of Community Affairs, Bureau of Public Safety Management, Division

of Emergency Management, the U.S. Department of Transportation, or any other

agency of the state or federal government.


ABSTRACT


An observational survey of seat belt use in Florida was conducted in

June and July 1990. Observations were made at 75 randomly selected traffic

count locations. The sample was stratified by federal functional classifica-

tion with strata weighted by estimates of vehicle miles travelled.

Statewide, seat belt usage was slightly over 40 percent. Vehicles on rural

and urban interstates had the highest usage rates, with 53.5 and 47.4 percent

respectively. Lowest usage was on rural minor arterials, where 25 percent

were wearing seat belts. Blacks and Hispanics had significantly lower usage

rates than whites, and females had higher usage rates than males.

Key Words: safety, automobile, seat belt use











TABLE OF CONTENTS


LIST OF TABLES . . . . . .

LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES . . . . .

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . .

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . .

SUMMARY . . . . .

INTRODUCTION . . . . . .

OBJECTIVES . . . . . . .

PROCEDURE . . . . . .

FINDINGS . . . . . . .

Seat Belt Usage by Urban and Rural Federal Functional Cla

Seat Belt Usage by Gender . . .

Seat Belt Usage by Race . . . .

Seat Belt Usage by Drivers and Riders ... .

Seat belt usage by drivers and riders
categorized by gender . . .

Seat belt usage by drivers and riders
categorized by race . . . .

Seat Belt Usage by Registration . . .

Seat Belt Usage by Vehicle Type. . . .

Seat Belt Usage by Time of Week. . . .

Seat Belt Usage by Time of Day . . .

Seat Belt Usage by Region . .......

Proper vs. Improper Seat Belt Usage . . .

CONCLUSIONS . . . . . .

REFERENCES .. . . . . . . .

APPENDIX A . . . . . . .

APPENDIX B . . . . . . .


is


Page

. iii

. iv




. vi

. vii




2

5

9










16
. 1








* 16
. 51









S. 19


S. 21

. 21


. 24





. 30




. 32



. 34

. 35

. 43
- 43









LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

1 Reported and observed seat belt use in Florida, 1983-1990 3

2 Proportionate distribution of all Florida vehicle miles
travelled and sample distribution, by federal highway
functional classification . . . . 4

3 A comparison of safety belt usage studies, 1986-1990 . 10

4 Statewide seat belt use by federal functional
classification . . . . ... . 12

5 Percentage of females observed by functional classification 13

6 Seat belt use by federal functional classification and
gender . . . . ... . . .15

7 Seat belt use by federal functional classification and
race .......................... 17

8 Seat belt use by federal functional classification and
location of front-seat occupants . . ... 18

9 Seat belt use in front seat, by federal functional
classification, gender, and location . . ... 20

10 Seat belt use in front seat, by federal functional
classification, race, and location . . .. 22

11 seat belt use by federal functional classification and
registration . . . . ... .... 23

12 Seat belt use by federal functional classification and
type of vehicle . . . . ... . 25

13 seat belt use by federal functional classification and
time of week . . . . .. . 26

14 Seat belt use by federal functional classification and
time of day . . . . ... ...... 28

15 seat belt use by federal functional classification and
region . . . . ... . . .29

16 Type of safety restraint observed . . ... 31









LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES


Table Page

1 seat belt use by county and individual observation sites .. .36

2 Numbers of observations for various demographic and
other descriptive variables . . . ... 41









LIST OF FIGURES


Figure ageL

1 Locations of seat belt survey observation sites . 8








ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


The authors wish to extend appreciation to Dorothy Thomson and

Larry Adkison of the Bureau of Public Safety Management of the Florida

Department of community Affairs for their technical assistance with this

project. special thanks go to Dr. John A. Cornell, Professor, Statistics

Department, University of Florida for his help with development of the survey

methodology and to Mr. Mikal O. Watnee of the Division of Planning and

Programming, Florida Department of Transportation, for his assistance with

data relating to traffic count locations. We are also grateful to

James Caputa and Frank Phillips for their diligent efforts in collecting and

analyzing data and to Renelle Ramirez for assisting with data processing and

for typing the manuscript.








SUMMARY


* The objective of this study was to provide current, unbiased
estimates of seat belt usage by drivers and front-seat riders of
cars, vans, and light trucks in Florida.

* Seventy-five observation sites in 35 counties were randomly selected
from 8,000 permanent traffic count locations throughout Florida.

* A stratified random sampling technique was used, with strata being the
various federal highway functional classifications, weighted by vehicle
miles travelled in 1988. This technique results in estimates of seat
belt usage that reflect motorists' risk exposure on a mileage basis.

a Observations were made in June and July. Observation schedules were
randomized by time-of-day (morning vs. afternoon) and time-of-week
(weekday vs weekend).

* statewide, overall seat belt usage was slightly over 40 percent.

* The highest seat belt usage was observed on rural and urban interstates
and urban expressways, with 53.5, 47.4 and 46.3 percent using seat
belts, respectively. The margin of error on these estimates is
approximately 2 percent.

I The lowest observed usage was on rural minor arterials, where approxi-
mately 25 percent were wearing seat belts.

* Overall, over 46 percent of all females were using seat belts, compared
to 35.6 percent of all males.

* Statewide, 42.8 percent of all whites were restrained by seat belts,
compared with 25.3 and 24.8 percent of all blacks and Hispanics.

* Drivers tend to wear seat belts more often than passengers, 42.6 versus
33.9 percent.

* Over 47 percent of the occupants in vehicles registered out-of-state
used seat belts, compared with 40 percent of Florida-registered
vehicles.

* Cars had higher seat belt usage than vans or light trucks; usage in cars
was 43.8 percent, in vans 40.7 percent and only 27 percent in trucks.

* Weekday usage was 41.3 percent, compared with 38.3 percent during
weekends.

a Seat belt usage was higher in the morning (7:00 A.M. to approximately
10: 00 A. M.) than in the afternoon (3: 00 P. M. to approximately 6: 00 P.M.)


vii









* Relatively few passengers were found to be improperly using restraint
systems; less than one percent were wearing shoulder belts behind their
backs and about two percent were wearing shoulder belts without lap
belts.

* In conclusion, seat belt use is relatively high on Florida's interstate
and expressway systems. Improvements in usage should be sought on other
types of highways, particularly in rural areas, and among males and
minorities


viii








1990 Automotive Safety Belt Usage Survey


INTRODUCTION


Motor vehicle accidents continue to be a major cause of death and injury

throughout the United States. Nationwide, approximately 50,000 people lose

their lives each year as a result of motor vehicle accidents, with nearly

3,000 of these deaths occurring in Florida (Statistical Abstract of the U. S..

1989 1989 Florida Statistical Abstract). Of these, from half to two-thirds

occur in passenger vehicles (Fatal Accident Reporting system Adkison, 1988).

In passenger automobiles, the effectiveness of safety belts (the term

seat belts is used interchangeably with safety belts throughout this report)

in reducing fatalities and injuries is well documented. According to one

estimate, 12,000 fatalities and 150,000 moderate to critical injuries could

be prevented each year by 100 percent usage of seat belts by front-seat

occupants. Eliminating these fatalities and injuries would also result in

enormous economic benefits to society as a whole by reducing medical and

legal expenses and lost productivity (Sapolsky, 1989).

As a result of the demonstrated effectiveness of safety seat belts in

passenger vehicles, the Highway Safety Acts of 1966 and 1978 were promulgated

to encourage the use of safety belts by drivers of and passengers in motor

vehicles (Public Law 89-564; Public Law 95-599). In Florida, the use of seat

belts was given impetus when the state Legislature passed the Florida Safety

Belt Law in 1986. This statute designated the period from July 1 through

December 31, 1986 as an educational period and provided for enforcement on a

secondary violation basis beginning January 1, 1987 (Florida Statutes,

316.614).









The Department of Community Affairs, through its Bureau of Public Safety

Management (BPSM), has monitored seat belt usage within the state of Florida

on a continuing, periodic basis through observational surveys since 1983

(Table 1). The periodic surveys provide an objective basis for detecting

trends in the general public's use of safety belts. Survey results are used

to evaluate current education and enforcement programs and to identify areas

where additional efforts are needed.


OBJECTIVES


The primary objective of this study was to provide current, unbiased

estimates of seat belt usage by drivers and front-seat riders of passenger

motor vehicles in Florida, excluding buses. Secondary objectives were to

provide detailed seat belt usage rates by type of roadway, i.e. federal

functional classification, by race, gender, type of passenger vehicle, in-

state vs. out-of-state registration, by time of day, weekday vs. weekend, and

by geographic region of the state. Proper and improper seat belt usage was

also to be observed and reported.

An overriding objective, suggested by administrators of the National

Highway Traffic safety Administration (NHTSA), was to develop a research

methodology which would allow greater comparability of usage estimates among

the eight states comprising Region IV of NHTSA.









Table 1.--Reported and observed seat belt use in Florida, 1983-1990.

Seat belt use


Survey period Reported 01


May 24-June 8, 1983

Nov. 2-Nov. 17, 1983

June 19-July 1, 1984

Sept. 25-Oct. 4, 1984

Jan. 22-Feb. 28, 1985

Jan. 14-Mar. 9, 1985

Sept. 23-Oct. 1, 1985

Nov. 17-Nov. 26, 1985

Feb. 5-Feb. 21, 1986

Sept. 1986

Jan. 1987

July-Aug. 1987

Nov. 1987

July-Aug. 1988

July 1989

June-July 1990


(----Percent

33.01

43.81

36.01

42.51

41.71


46. 42
46.42


43


sample
served size

-----) (No.)

-- 522

-- 454

-- 604

-- 617

4,136

22.3 49,016

-- 622

-- 611

28.1 20,000

40.8 23,670

60.5 22,062

49.8 24,296

49.8 23,155

47.1 9,262

55.0 18,142

40.5 30,209


Survey area,
number of counties



Selected counties

selected counties

Statewide

Statewide

Selected MSAs (8)

Selected MSAs (8)

Statewide

Statewide

Selected MSAs (10)

selected co.'s (14)

Selected co.'s (14)

Selected co.'s (13)

Selected co.'s (13)

Selected co.'s (14)

Selected co.'s (15)

Selected co.'s (35)


Sources: Communication Research Center, Florida State University, 1989, and
observational survey of seat belt usage by Florida Agricultural
Market Research Center, University of Florida, 1990 .


uL


--





--
--









Table 2.--Proportionate distribution of all Florida vehicle miles travelled
and sample distribution, by federal highway functional classifica-
tion.

Federal highway Vehicle miles Observation
functional classification travelled sites in sample

(Percent)* (Number)
Urban

Interstates 8.9 7

Expressways 4.2 3

Primary arterial 17.5 13

Minor arterial 13.2 10

Collector 8.7 21
Local 19.6 0

All urban 72.1 54

Rural
Interstates 7.4 6

Primary arterial 8.2 6
Minor arterial 5.4 4

Collector 4.2 5

Local 2.8 0

All rural 28.0 21

Total 100.0C 75

'Percentages are based upon a total of 105,319 million vehicle miles
travelled statewide in 1988. Source: U.S. Department of Transportation.

"The Florida Department of Transportation has very few traffic count
locations classified as urban or rural "local" streets or roads. Thus, the
proportions of the sample that would have been allocated to the "local"
stratum was included in the "collector" stratum.


cPercentage does not sum to 100.0 due to rounding.






5

PROCEDURE


Representatives from the eight southeastern states comprising Region IV

of NHTSA met in october 1989 in Atlanta to formulate general guidelines for

conducting observational traffic safety surveys. The intent of the

guidelines was to foster greater comparability of methods and results among

states. The guidelines resulting from the Atlanta meeting were the basis for

the survey methodology developed, although some deviations were made in order

to be pragmatic, yet statistically defensible. The sampling procedure was

formulated with the assistance of Dr. John A. Cornell, Professor of

Statistics at the University of Florida. Dr. Cornell specializes in the

design of experiments.

The sampling frame was comprised of all permanent traffic count

locations for which the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) had

sufficient data for proper identification as to federal functional classifi-

cation. The sampling frame contained over 8,000 individual locations

distributed throughout all counties.

A stratified random sample of 75 observational sites was drawn from the

various federal highway functional classifications (U.S. Department of

Transportation). Strata were weighted by their respective estimates of

vehicle miles travelled (VMTs) for 1988 (Table 2). The 75 sites constituted

the primary sample. If a primary site proved to be unusable because of

construction, lack of control devices to stop traffic, or observer safety

considerations, the nearest traffic count location within the same federal

functional classification was used as an alternate. Because the Florida DOT

monitors very few traffic count locations in the "local" category, the

proportion of the sample that should have been "local" was included in the

"collector" category. The rationale for using "collectors" in lieu of









"local" sites was that (1) there were too few local sites to complete the

stratum, (2) they were not geographically dispersed, and (3) much traffic

from "local" sites feeds into "collectors."

To provide reasonably accurate estimates of seat belt usage at

individual observation sites, a quota of 400 observations per site was

established. The fixed quota for each site within each stratum (federal

functional classification), which in turn is weighted by vehicle miles

travelled, results in overall statewide estimates of seat belt usage that

reflect motorists' risk exposure on a mileage basis. Estimates of seat belt

usage within each stratum indicate motorists' risk exposure for a particular

type of highway. This quota results in confidence limits around point

estimates at each site of approximately 5 percentage points at the 95

percent probability level. However, when larger aggregations of data are

made, confidence limits are frequently in the range of one to two percentage

points. In order to obtain the relatively large quota at each site within a

half-day period, only those traffic count locations with average daily

traffic counts (ADTs) of 2,400 or more were included in the sample. This

restriction only affected the "collector" category, and it served to exclude

very few sites. Thus, it is likely that the minimum ADT restriction

interjected little bias into the overall results.

After the primary sample was drawn within each of the urban and rural

federal highway functional classifications, the sample was further stratified

to allow for proportionate numbers of weekday-weekend and morning-evening

observation periods. Thus, 21 sites (2/7) were randomly selected statewide

for weekend observations, with the remaining sites reserved for weekdays.

Then, in order to facilitate efficient scheduling, the 75 observational sites

were organized into regions around major urban areas. After a random start,

sites within a given region were alternately assigned to a morning-afternoon








observation schedule. The morning schedule began at 7:00 AM and continued

until the prescribed quota of 400 observations had been recorded or until

12:00 noon. The afternoon schedule began at 3:00 PM and continued until the

quota had been attained or until 8:00 PM. The average amount of time

required at each of the 75 sites was approximately three hours. Thus,

observations at virtually every location included a cross section of "rush

hour" and "non-rush hour" traffic.

Plans were to select an alternate site for observation on a later date

if fewer than 200 observations were obtained at a primary site during a five-

hour period because of low traffic flows. However, quotas were achieved at

all sites during the prescribed time periods. If fewer than 200 observations

were obtained because of inclement weather, the same site was revisited on a

later date. Approximately ten sites had to be rescheduled because of rain.

In all cases, observations made at alternate sites or on substitute days were

made during similar time periods as initially scheduled, i.e. weekdays or

weekends, mornings or afternoons.

The state was divided into three geographic regions for analysis. The

three regions and the number of observation sites within each county are

shown in Figure 1.

The observational sites used in this study are classified by county and

federal functional class and identified by Florida Department of Transporta-

tion (FDOT) traffic count station numbers (Appendix Table 1). The form used

to record observations is found in Appendix B.
















Northern Region






Central Region -
-~7







L ) Central Region
SSouthern Region

Southern Region





Figure 1. Locations of seat belt survey observation sites (numbers indicate

total observation sites within counties).


COLUMA


- IOM


,m WMo






9

FINDING

In general, the 1990 study found the same pattern of usage rates among

the various subgroups as in previous years (Table 3). seat belt usage was

higher for drivers, females and whites. Occupants of out-of-state vehicles

buckled up more often than in-state, and urban areas showed a higher rate of

seat belt usage than rural areas. However, overall reported safety belt

usage in 1990 was 40.5 percent compared with 55.0 percent in 1989 (Table 3).

Thus, there appears to be a 15-point decline in overall seat belt usage

between the 1989 study and the 1990 study. However, part of this apparent

decrease is probably due to a change in sampling methodology. The methodolo-

gy developed for the 1990 study is based largely upon the guidelines

developed at the Region IV NHTSA meeting in October, 1989, in Atlanta. The

new methodology, while more costly to implement, is thought to be more

accurate because of greater numbers of observation sites, greater geographic

dispersion, inclusion of weekend, morning and afternoon observation periods,

longer observation periods to include rush hour/non-rush hour traffic and

weighting by vehicle miles travelled by federal functional classification.

The findings which follow will show that each federal highway functional

class has a different rate of seat belt usage, thus the proportion observed

from each class will affect the overall seat belt usage rate. since the 1990

study was stratified and weighted by different criteria, the statistics are

not directly comparable to 1989. Even so, the highest observed usage rates

in the current study (for urban and rural interstates) were slightly below

the average usage rates reported in 1989. Thus, it is likely that seat belt

usage has declined somewhat over the past year.









Table 3.--A comparison of safety belt usage studies, 1986-1990.

Category of Sept. Jan. Aug. Nov. Aug. July* Julyb
occupant 1986 1987 1987 1987 1988 1989 1990
(-------------------------Percent-------------------------

All 40.8 60.5 49.8 49.8 47.1 55.0 40.5


Drivers 41.8 61.0 51.0 51.0 48.8 55.2 42.6
Passengers 36.5 58.4 45.4 45.6 41.1 54.1 33.9


Males 37.4 56.9 47.6 46.3 42.8 49.9 35.6

Females 45.1 65.0 52.7 53.9 52.4 61.5 46.4


Whites 42.7 61.0 51.7 51.3 49.2 56.5 42.8
Blacks 23.2 56.2 35.9 36.2 36.7 42.7c 25.3


In-state 40.9 59.9 50.1 49.4 46.2 54.7 40.0
out-of-state 39.1 63.8 43.4 56.1 56.0 58.6 47.3


Urban 40.8 60.0 49.8 51.3 46.3 56.0 41.5

Rural 40.8 61.6 49.9 43.9 42.2 47.8 37.8


Freeway exitsd -- -- 54.7 58.4 49.5


*Percentages from July 1989

bThe July 1990 results are


are derived from a weighted analysis.

based upon a survey conducted in June and


*The July 1989 figure represents all non-white drivers/passengers.

dThe August 1988 survey was the first survey to include freeway exits
as a category. The 1990 figure reflects observations made at exits of rural
and urban interstates and urban expressways.

Source: 1986-1989 data, Sapolsky; 1990 data, calculated from current
survey data.


July.






11

Seat Belt Usaqe by Urban and Rural Federal

Functional Classification


Discussions which follow are organized by federal highway functional

class and by various demographic and descriptive variables. Numbers of

observations associated with all demographic and other descriptive variables

appear in Appendix A (Appendix Table 2). Federal highway functional

classifications identify roads as part of a network linking smaller tributary

roads to increasingly larger roads. The smallest classifications are locals

and collectors. As mentioned previously, locals and collectors are combined

for this study's purposes because there were too few local sites specified by

FDOT. collectors feed into minor arterials which in turn feed into primary

arterials. In rural areas, primary arterials feed into interstates, whereas

in urban areas primary arterials may feed into expressways or interstates

(Highway Functional Classification: concepts, Criteria and Procedures, U.s.

Department of Transportion, March 1989).

Within both rural and urban categories, observed seat belt usage

followed the same pattern (Table 4). Usage was highest at interstate

locations and lowest at minor arterial locations. On collectors, the

smallest highway classification observed, usage was higher than either

primary or minor arterials but lower than interstate or expressway usage.

It is unclear as to why higher usage rates were observed on collectors than

on primary or minor arterials. Initially, this phenomenon was thought to be

caused by disproportionate numbers of females observed on collectors, but

this was not found to be the case (Table 5).

Although overall usage in urban areas was higher than in rural areas,

usage at rural interstate locations was 53.5 percent, more than six










Table 4.--Statewide seat belt use by federal functional classification.

Federal functional Percent using
classification sites observations seat belts'

Rural
Interstate 6 2,419 53.5 2.0
Primary arterial 6 2,445 31.3 +1.8

Minor arterial 3 1,639 24.9 2.1
Collector 5 2,021 37.5 2.1

All rural 28 8,524 37.8 1.0
Urban
Interstate 7 2,795 47.4 +1.9
Expressway 3 1,232 46.3 2.8
Primary arterial 13 5,207 38.8 +1.3
Minor arterial 10 3,960 35.2 1.5

Collector 21 8,491 43.5 1.1
All urban 64 21,685 41.5 +0.7
All locations 75 30,209 40.5 +0.6

*Confidence limits are computed at the 95 percent probability level.








Table 5.--Percentage of females observed by functional classification.

Federal functional classification Percentage of females in sample

Rural

Interstate 41.9

Primary arterial 44.6
Minor arterial 46.8

Collector 40.4

All rural 43.3

Urban

Interstate 42.2

Expressway 53.7

Primary arterial 46.4

Minor arterial 42.7

Collector 45.4

All urban 45.2

All locations 44.7







14

percentage points above urban interstate locations. This difference between

rural and urban interstate usage might be attributed to a greater number of

long distance travellers at rural locations than at urban; long distance

travellers may be more likely to wear safety belts than short distance

commuters using urban interstates. Urban interstates and expressways showed

similar seat belt usage rates at 47.4 and 46.3 percent respectively (Table

4).

Urban usage at primary and minor arterials was 38.8 and 35.2 percent

respectively, higher than usage rates for the same functional classes in

rural locations. Rural usage at primary and minor arterials was 31.3 and

24.9 percent respectively, the lowest of all functional classifications

(Table 4).

Urban collectors' overall usage rate was 43.5 percent, six percentage

points higher than rural collectors and higher than any other functional

class, with the exception of interstates and expressways (Table 4).


Seat Belt Usage by Gender


over all functional classifications, both urban and rural, females were

wearing safety belts more often than males. Over 46 percent of all females

observed were using seat belts compared to only 35.6 percent of males.

Females on rural interstates had the highest usage rate, 59.1 percent, while

males on rural minor arterials had the lowest, 22.9 percent. Urban males

were restrained by seat belts more often than rural males and likewise urban

females had a higher usage rate than rural females (Table 6).







Table 6.--Seat belt use by federal functional classification and gender.

Gender'
Federal functional
classification Male Female

(Percent using seat belts)
Rural

Interstate 49.7 59.1

Primary arterial 28.4 34.6

Minor arterial 22.9 26.9

Collector 32.2 44.7

All rural 34.5 42.0

Urban

Interstate 39.8 57.5

Expressway 39.9 51.7

Primary arterial 35.7 42.3

Minor arterial 31.4 40.2*

Collector 36.6 51.7

All urban 36.0 48.1

All locations 35.6 46.4

*chi-square analysis indicates that seat belt use was significantly
related to gender for all data groups (P<0.05).









Beat Belt Usaae by Race


The aggregation of all functional classes by race showed 42.8 percent

of all whites to be restrained by seat belts. Blacks and Hispanics followed

with overall seat belt usage at 25.3 and 24.8 percent, respectively (Table

7).

Within both urban and rural categories, whites were belted more often

than blacks, except for blacks on urban expressways. Larger proportions of

whites than Hispanics were also found to be belted on almost all types of

highways; there were too few observations of Hispanics on rural minor

arterials to draw any meaningful conclusions.

Whites travelling on rural interstates showed the highest level of

safety belt usage, 55.8 percent. Seat belt usage was lowest, under 12

percent, for blacks travelling on rural primary arterials and rural minor

arterials and for Hispanics on rural collectors (Table 7).


Beat Belt Usaae by Drivers and Riders


Statewide, only 1.53 percent of all front-seat passengers were in the

"center" position, and only 6.6 percent of these were using seat belts.

Because of the small numbers of center position passengers, the center and

right-hand position passengers were combined into the "rider" category.

Over all functional classifications, 42.6 percent of drivers wore

safety belts while only 33.9 percent of riders were belted (Table 8).

Drivers wore seat belts more often in urban areas than rural, and likewise

urban riders were belted more often than rural. In rural areas, nearly 40

percent of drivers were belted compared to only 33.1 percent of riders.

similarly, in urban areas, nearly 44 percent of drivers were wearing seat

belts whereas only about 34 percent of riders were restrained.








Table 7.--Seat belt use by federal functional classification and race.

Race*
Federal functional
classification white Black Hispanic

(----Percent of seat belt use----)

Rural

Interstate 55.8 30.2 29.7

Primary arterial 33.7 10.6 16.1

Minor arterial 26.4 11.3 33.3 N.S.

Collector 39.8 18.9 9.1

All rural 40.1 17.5 18.5

Urban

Interstate 49.3 33.8 25.7

Expressway 47.4 52.1 29.4

Primary arterial 40.7 22.3 16.1

Minor arterial 40.3 18.0 21.4

Collector 45.4 27.6 26.6

All urban 44.0 27.5 26.0

All locations 42.8 25.3 24.8

*Chi-square analysis indicates that seat belt use was significantly
related to race for all data groups (P<0.05), except for Hispanics in the
rural minor arterial category for which there were too few observations for
a valid Chi-square test.









Table 8.--Seat belt use by federal functional classification and location of
front-seat occupants.


Federal functional
classification


Location'
Drivers Ridersb

(Percent using seat belts)


Rural

Interstate

Primary arterial

Minor arterial

Collector

All rural

Urban


Interstate

Expressway

Primary arterial

Minor arterial

Collector

All urban

All locations


55.7

33.0

26.9

38.6

39.7


49.1

49.5

41.0

37.1

45.7

43.7

42.6


48.1

27.6

20.5

33.8

33.1


40.4

34.9

32. 2

29.3

36.4

34.3

33.9


*Chi-square analysis indicates that seat belt use
related to location for all data groups (P<0.05).


was significantly


statewide, only 1.53 percent of all front-seat passengers were in the
"center" position and 6.6 percent were using a seat belt. The center and
right-hand position passengers were combined into the "rider" category.


I






19

Nearly 56 percent of the rural interstate drivers wore seat belts,

compared with 49.1 and 49.5 percent of the urban interstate and urban

expressway drivers respectively. The lowest usage rate was by riders on

rural minor arterials; only 20.5 percent were belted (Table 8).


seat belt usage by drivers and riders categorized by gender


overall, female drivers and riders were restrained more often than

their male counterparts. Over 50 percent of female drivers wore seat belts

compared to only 37.6 percent of male drivers. Over 38 percent of female

riders were belted compared to about 26 percent of male riders (Table 9).

within gender categories, rural versus urban seat belt usage varied

more for females than males. Usage for urban female drivers was 52.2

percent, nearly seven percentage points higher than rural female drivers.

The difference was less for female riders; 39.2 percent of female riders in

urban areas wore seat belts compared to 37 percent of female riders in rural

areas. Usage for urban male drivers and rural male drivers was 38 and 36.6

percent respectively. For male riders, there was no difference between those

observed in urban areas and those observed at rural locations; the propor-

tions using seat belts were 25.8 percent in both types of locations.

The high and low usage rates across all functional classes were 63.1

percent for female drivers on rural interstates and 16.7 percent for male

riders on rural minor arterials. Within each gender category, the same was

true; the highest usage was found on rural interstates and the lowest on

rural minor arterials (Table 9).










Table 9. --eat belt use in front seat, by federal functional classification,
gender and location.
Gender*

Male Female
Federal functional
classification Driver Riderb Driver Riderb
(----Percent using seat belts----)

Rural
Interstate 52.0 38.8 63.1 53.8
Primary arterial 30.5 20.2 37.2 31.4
Minor arterial 24.7 16.7 29.9 22.4

Collector 33.2 26.6 48.3 36.8

All rural 36.6 25.8 45.3 37.0

Urban
Interstate 41.2 32.0 61.4 46.2

Expressway 41.9 28.0 57.3 37.4
Primary arterial 37.4 26.5b 46.3 34.5

Minor arterial 33.7 20.4 42.7 35.1

Collector 38.8 25.9 55.8 42.9

All urban 38.0 25.8 52.2 39.2

All locations 37.6 25.8 50.5 38.5

aChi-square analysis indicates that seat belt use was significantly
related to gender and location for all data groups (P<0.05).

bPassengers in the center position were included in the rider category.









seat belt uuaae by drivers and riders cateaorised by race


Greater proportions of both white drivers and white riders were

observed to be wearing safety belts than black and Hispanic drivers or riders

(Table 10). Nearly 45 percent of white drivers were wearing seat belts

compared to about 29 percent of black drivers and about 27 percent of

Hispanic drivers. Overall usage rates for white, black and Hispanic riders

were 37.1, 15.7, and 20.9 percent respectively. Caution should be used in

interpreting some of the usage figures for Hispanics on individual federal

functional classifications because of small numbers of observations.

Seat belt usage across all functional classes was highest for white

drivers on rural interstates and lowest for black riders on primary arterials

in rural areas. For all races, urban drivers tended to be belted more often

than rural drivers, and likewise, urban riders generally wore seat belts more

often than rural riders.


Seat Belt Usage By Registration


Vehicles registered out-of-state had a consistently higher rate of seat

belt usage than in-state vehicles (Table 11). The overall seat belt usages

for out-of-state and in-state registered vehicles were 47.3 percent and 40.0

percent respectively.

Over all rural functional classifications, seat belt usage was 36.3

percent for in-state registered vehicles compared with 49.3 percent for out-

of-state vehicles. Much of this large overall difference in rural seatbelt

usage was attributable to collectors, where there was nearly a 20 percent

difference in seat belt usage between in-state and out-of-state registered

vehicles. For all urban classifications, the overall difference between








Table 10.--Seat belt use in front seat, by federal functional classification,
race, and location.

Race

Federal functional white Black Hispanic

classification Driver Rider Driver Rider Driver Rider

(--------------Percent using seat belts--------------

Rural

Interstate 57.5 51.2 33.6 23.8 -- -

Primary arterial 35.0 30.9 14.6 2.8 18.2 13.8

Minor arterial 28.4 22.2 13.3 6.4 -- --

Collector 40.5 37.1 21.3 12.5 9.5 --

All rural 41.7 35.9 20.4 11.3 20.6 16.1

Urban

Interstate 50.6 43.6 38.1 20.5 27.3 --

Expressway 49.1 39.3 56.5 37.2 31.9 25.4

Primary arterial 42.7 34.4 24.6 16.9 25.0 --

Minor arterial 41.5 36.4 21.1 10.0 23.1 17.7

Collector 47.5 38.7 31.1 16.9 27.6 24.2

All urban 45.8 37.7 31.2 17.2 27.8 22.3

All locationsa 44.7 37.1 28.9 15.7 26.8 20.9

overall percentages for white drivers and riders were based upon 19,609 and 6,258 observations,
respectively. For blacks there were 2,388 drivers and 909 riders, and for Hispanics, 541 drivers and 282
riders. Caution should be used in interpreting percentages of blacks and Hispanics for individual functional
classifications because of small numbers of observations. Percentages are not shown where there were fewer
than 20 observations.








Table 11.--seat belt use by federal functional classification and
registration.

Registration*
Federal functional
classification In-state Out-of-state

(----Percent using seat belts----)


Rural

Interstate

Primary arterial

Minor arterial

Collector

All rural

Urban

Interstate

Expressway

Primary arterial

Minor arterial

Collector

All urban

All locations


53.0

30.9

24.3

35.4

36.3


46.8

46.0

38.6

34.8

43.4

41.3

40.0


55.8

36.6

32.0

54.3

49.3


N. S.

N. S.

N. S.


57.1

61.1 N.S.

41.8 N.S.

42.2

45.7 N.S.

45.5

47.3


achi-square analysis indicates that
related to registration for all data groups
N.S., for not significant (P<0.05).


seat belt use was significantly
except those with the designation






24

seat belt usage in in-state and out-of-state registered vehicles was not as

great as it was for the rural locations; 41.3 percent of the occupants of in-

state vehicles were observed wearing seat belts, compared with 45.5 percent

of the out-of-state registered vehicles (Table 11).

The higher and more consistent rates of seat belt usage for out-of-

state vehicles as compared to in-state vehicles may be due to distance

travelled and to anxiety caused by unfamiliar highways. Logically, out-of-

state vehicles would be travelling longer distances than in-state vehicles,

and there appears to be a tendency for people to buckle-up more often for

longer trips than shorter trips, thus resulting in higher seat belt usage in

out-of-state vehicles.


Seat Belt Usage by Vehicle Type


Cars generally had higher seat belt usage than either trucks or vans.

Across all locations, seat belt usage in cars was 43.8 percent, vans had a

40.7 percent usage rate and trucks had a 27.0 percent usage rate. This

pattern was reflected in both rural and urban locations (Table 12).


Seat Belt Usage by Time of Week


over all locations, weekday usage was higher than weekend usage: 41.3

percent and 38.3 percent respectively, urban areas followed this overall

pattern with weekday usage over five percentage points higher than weekend

seat belt usage. The opposite was true for rural areas where weekend seat

belt usage was at 39.9 percent, higher than the weekday usage level of 37.2

percent. This reversal for rural areas could possibly be explained by urban

residents travelling to rural locations for weekend recreational outings

(Table 13).









Table 12.--Seat belt use by federal functional classification and type of
vehicle.

Type of vehicle*
Federal functional
classification Car Truckb Van

(----Percent of seat belt use----)

Rural
Interstate 58.8 34.9 52.4

Primary arteri- 35.8 17.4 30.7
al

Minor arterial 25.2 20.2 38.0

Collector 41.7 25.0 37.6

All rural 41.9 24.3 40.1

Urban
Interstate 52.5 30.6 39.9

Expressway 47.8 32.7 44.0

Primary arteri- 40.6 28.9 44.0
al

Minor arterial 37.0 26.1 41.5
Collector 47.2 28.2 39.1
All urban 44.5 28.4 41.0

All locations 43.8 27.0 40.7


significantly


'Includes light trucks only.


'Chi-square analysis indicates that seat belt use was
related to type of vehicle for all data groups (P<0.05).










Table 13.--Seat belt use by federal functional classification
week.


and time of


Time of week*
Federal functional
classification Weekday Weekend
(Percent using seat belts)

Rural

Interstate 54.8 50.9 N.S.

Primary arterial 28.5 36.9
Minor arterial 25.0 24.6 N.S.

Collector 37.5 --

All rural 37.2 39.9

Urban

Interstate 47.4 -b

Expressway 51.8 35.4

Primary arterial 41.5 32.6
Minor arterial 33.0 44.0

Collector 46.2 39.0

All urban 43.0 37.7

All locations 41.3 38.3

'Chi-square analysis indicates that seat belt use was significantly
related to time of week for all data groups (P<0.05) except those designated
N.S., for not significant.


bThere were no observations in this category.








Seat Belt Usage by Time of Day


In general, seat belt usage in the morning was higher than seat belt

usage in the afternoon (Table 14). Over all locations, the percentage using

seat belts was 43.9 percent in the mornings and 37.3 percent in the

afternoons. Afternoon seat belt usage was substantially lower for both urban

and rural areas. Urban usage was 44.2 percent in mornings and rural morning

usage was 43 percent. In the afternoon, urban usage was 38.8 percent, while

rural usage was 34 percent. Time-of-day differences were not significantly

different for rural or urban interstates nor for urban collectors. However,

time-of-day differences for all other functional classifications were

statistically significant. One plausible explanation for the time-of-day

difference might be a greater propensity for short shopping trips to be taken

in the mid- to late afternoon and a possibility that such trips might include

more unrestrained children.


Seat Belt Usage by Region


Three geographic regions were defined for the state. The northern,

central and southern regions were comprised of 33, 16, and 18 counties,

respectively (Figure 1). Across all locations, seat belt usage varied

slightly with the northern region having the highest usage at 42.8 percent,

and the central and southern regions lower, at 40.1 percent and 38.2 percent

respectively (Table 15).

In rural areas, overall seat belt usage was higher in the northern and

central regions than in the southern region: 40.1 percent, 40.0 percent and

28.6 percent respectively. Seat belt usage in the urban areas was similar in

the central and southern regions (40.1 percent and 40.5 percent respective-

ly), and somewhat higher in the northern region (44.1 percent).









Table 14.--Seat belt use by federal functional classification and time of
day.

Time of day*
Federal functional
classification Morning Afternoon
(Percent using seat belts)

Rural

Interstate 53.9 52.8 N.S.

Primary arterial 43.8 28.7
Minor arterial 34.6 21.7
Collector 31.1 47.2

All rural 43.0 34.0

Urban

Interstate 48.4 46.0 N.S.

Expressway 51.8 35.4

Primary arterial 40.7 37.2
Minor arterial 45.0 32.8
Collector 43.3 43.7 N.S.
All urban 44.2 38.8

All locations 43.9 37.3

"'Time of day" refers to the morning and afternoon schedules which began
at 7:00 AM and 3:00 PM, respectively, and lasted approximately three hours
each. chi-square analysis,indicates that seat belt use was significantly
related to time of day for the data groups except those designated N.S., for
not significant (P<0.05).









Table 15.--seat belt use by federal functional classification and region.

Region'a,
Federal functional
classification Northern Central Southern

(----Percent of seat belt use----)

Rural

Interstate 50.9 56.2a --b

Primary arterial 31.8 34.3 27.9

Minor arterial 26.2 23.6 --b
Collector 52.1 38.6 29.2

All rural 40.1 40.0 28.6

Urban

Interstate 49.8 41.3 54.1

Expressway 57.4 -- b 40.5

Primary arterial 46.9 36.7 35.9
Minor arterial 35.9 32.1 38.3

Collector 45.3 44.3 40.4

All urban 44.1 40.1 40.5

All locations 42.8 40.1 38.2


'see Figure 1 for definitions of regions.

bThere were no observations in this category.

OChi-square analysis indicates that seat belt
related to region for all data groups (P<0.05).


use was significantly









Proper vs. Improper Seat Belt Usaqe


observers also recorded specific information as to how seat belts were

worn (coding Form, Appendix B). Observations fell into one of six catego-

ries: "lap belt with shoulder belt", "lap belt only", "lap belt with shoulder

belt behind", "shoulder belt only", "child restraint device" and "none".

Approved child restraint devices were also considered proper restraint, and

passengers with lap belts with their shoulder straps behind the back, though

improper, were considered belted for the purpose of seat belt usage tabula-

tion. Thus, the "shoulder belt only' and "none" categories were defined as

not belted, while the other four categories were defined as belted.

of all observations, 38.8 percent wore lap belts with shoulder straps

properly in place, 0.7 percent used a lap belt with the shoulder belt behind

their backs, 0.6 percent wore a lap belt only, and 0.4 percent were in child

restraint devices (Table 16). Thus, 40.5 percent were considered belted. It

should be noted that some of the passengers wearing lap belts with shoulder

belts behind their backs were children which were too large for child

restraint devices but too small for comfortable use of shoulder harnesses.








Table 16--Type of safety restraint observed.

Type of Restraint Number Percent


Lap and shoulder belts 11,713 38.8
Lap belt with shoulder belt behind back 225 0.7

Lap belt only 169 0.6
Child restraint device 119 0.4
Total belted 12,226 40.5


shoulder belt only 627 2.1

None 17,355 57.4

Total not restrained 17.982 59.5
Grand Totals 30,208 100.0










CONCLUSIONS


The 1990 survey of seat belt usage in Florida found 40.5 percent of

front seat occupants restrained by seat belts. A new sampling methodology

was developed which weights seat belt use by driving risk exposure, i.e.,

vehicle miles travelled. The sample of observation points was stratified by

federal functional classification and data were examined in detail by race,

gender, type of passenger vehicle, in-state vs. out-of-state registration,

time of day, weekday vs. weekend, and by geographic region of the state.

Drivers were observed wearing seat belts more often than front seat

passengers, females were belted more often than males, and the usage rate for

whites was higher than for blacks or Hispanics. occupants of out-of-state

vehicles used seat belts more often than in-state, and urban areas showed a

higher rate of seat belt usage than rural areas. Usage was highest in cars

and vans while light trucks had the lowest usage level. Overall usage was

higher in the morning than in the afternoon, and weekday usage was higher

than weekend. Overall, there was little difference in usage among three

regions of the state, but on rural roads, the southern region had the lowest

seat belt use. Within both rural and urban areas, observed seat belt usage

followed the same general pattern. seat belt usage was highest at the

interstate level and use diminished as the federal functional classifications

decreased except for increased seat belt usage at the collector level. This

pattern was consistent even when broken down into the various subgroups

mentioned above.

Relatively few passengers were found to be improperly using restraint

systems. Less than one percent of all passengers were observed wearing their

shoulder belts behind their backs and only 0.6 percent were wearing lap belts

only. Further, some of those wearing lap belts only were in older cars that





33

were manufactured without shoulder belts. About two percent of all

passengers were wearing shoulder belts only, risking serious injury.

In conclusion, this study provides an indication that seat belt use is

relatively high on Florida's interstate and expressway systems. However,

improvement in usage should be sought on other types of highways, particular-

ly in rural areas. Further, educational programs and enforcement efforts

might target males, minorities, light trucks, and afternoon and weekend

traffic.









REFERENCES


Adkison, Larry. "Safety Belt Report." Bureau of Public Safety Management.
Unpublished data. 1988.

Fatal Accident Reporting system Data. Various years.

Ferber, Robert. Statistical Techniques in Market Research. McGraw-Hill Book
Company, Inc. New York. 1949.

Florida Statutes, 316.614.

Highway Safety Act of 1966. Public Law 89-564. September 9, 1966.

Highway Safety Act of 1978. Public Law 95-599. November 6, 1978.

sapolsky, Barry S. and Deborah Phillips. 1989 observed seat Belt use in
Florida. Department of Communication. Florida State University.
September 1989.

Sapolsky, Barry S. and Leisa J. Stanley. Observed seat Belt Use in selected
Florida Counties: August 1988 Survey. Communication Research Center.
Florida State University. September 1988.

Shermyen, Anne H. (Ed.) 1989 Florida Statistical Abstract. 23rd Edition.
Bureau of Economic and Business Research, College of Business Adminis-
tration, University of Florida. University Presses of Florida.
Gainesville. September 1989.

United States Department of Commerce. Statistical Abstract of the United
States, 1989. 109th Edition. United States Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the census. January 1989.

United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
Highway Functional classification: Concepts. Criteria and Procedures.
March 1989.

United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
Highway Statistics, 1988. USDOT Publication No. FHWA-PL-89-003. U.S.
Government Printing Office. Washington, DC. 1989.









































APPENDIX A

Tables









Appendix Table 1. --Seat belt use by county and individual observation sites.

Percent
County, Identification Number of using
federal functional class number' observations seatbeltsb


primary arterial

minor arterial

collector

collector


Bay
Urban

Urban

Urban

Urban

Bradford

Urban

Brevard

Rural

Broward

Urban

Urban

Urban

Calhoun

Rural

Dade

Urban

Urban

Urban

DeSoto

Urban

Duval

Urban

Urban

Urban

Urban


expressway

minor arterial

interstate



primary arterial



expressway

minor arterial

collector


primary arterial


interstate

interstate

expressway

collector


403

405

401

423


38.7

38.3

39.7

43.7


4.8

4.7

4.8

t4.7


38.8 4.6


66.8 4.6


165


45.9

40.0

50.7


163

1569

366


405



208

1687

223


+4.9

4.8

+4.9


19.4 +3.8


35.4

36.4

31.6


+4.6

+5.0

+4.6


23.4 +4.2



49.1 +4.9

50.5 +4.9

57.4 +4.7

60.4 +4.7

Continued


collector


interstate










Appendix Table 1.--Seat belt use
continued.


by county and individual observation sites


Percent
Identification Number of using
number* observations seatbeltsb


County,
Federal functional class

Escambia

Rural collector

Urban primary arterial

Urban minor arterial

Urban collector

Franklin

Rural minor arterial

Gadsden

Rural interstate

Urban minor arterial

Hendrv

Rural primary arterial

Highlands

Rural primary arterial

Rural collector

Urban primary arterial

Hillsborouqh

Rural primary arterial

Urban interstate

Urban interstate

Urban primary arterial

Urban primary arterial

Urban minor arterial

Urban minor arterial

Indian River

Rural interstate

Jackson

Rural minor arterial


315

936

924

128


642


111

995


103


139

A61

A104


159

66

45

174

14

A96

112


A220


52.1

56.4

49.8

51.4


4.9

4.8

4.9

4.8


17.8 +3.7


42.3

18.3


+4. 8

3.8


403

404

402

424


404


402

405


429


395

419

399


397

399

398

399

401

397

398


29.6

27.2

32.3


33.2

45.6

37.9

32.8

41.4

27.7

38.2


+4.5

+4.3

+4.6


+4.6

+4.9

4.8

+4.6

L4.8

+4. 4

4.8


52.4 +5.0


34.6 +4.6

Continued


cn inud


26.3 +4.2









Appendix Table 1.--seat belt use
continued.


by county and individual observation sites


Percent
county, Identification Number of using
Federal functional class number* observations seatbeltsb


LakeRural collector
Rural collector


35.0 +4.6


35.6 t4.7


urban primary arterial

Leon


Urban

Urban

urban

Manatee

Urban

Urban

Marion

Urban

Martin

Urban


primary arterial

minor arterial

collector


primary arterial

collector


primary arterial


collector


1014

1036

144


356

30


813


246


Orange

Rural primary arterial

Urban collector

Urban collector

Urban collector

Urban collector

Palm Beach

Urban interstate

Urban collector

Urban collector


45.5

51.6

37.9


40.1

33.4


+4.8

+4.9

+4.7


+4.8

+4. 7


30.0 +4.5



32.2 4.6


35.3

47.7

43.1

57.1

42.5


57.5

46.5

54.8


+4.7

4.9

+4.9

4. 9

4.9


+4.9

4.9

4.6


Continued









Appendix Table 1.--Seat belt use
continued.


by county and individual observation sites


Percent
County, Identification Number of using
Federal functional class number* observations seatbeltsb


Pinellas

Urban interstate

Urban collector

Urban collector

Urban collector

Polk

Rural minor arterial

Urban primary arterial

Urban primary arterial

Urban minor arterial

Urban collector

Urban collector

Santa Rosa

Rural interstate

Sarasota

Urban primary arterial

seminole

Rural collector

St. Johns

Rural primary arterial

St. Lucie

Rural collector

Urban collector

Sumter

Rural minor arterial

Suwannee

Urban minor arterial


396

398


412


406


40.2

44.5

38.5

41.2


24.6

38.4

41.1

30.4

39.6

44.3


4.8

4.9

4.8
+4.8


+4.1

+4.8

+4.8

+4.5

+4.9

4.9


53.1 4.8


48.2 4.9


42.3 +4.9


43.8 4.7


31.3 4.6

41.7 4.8


22.6 +4.0


21.9 +4.0

continued






40

Appendix Table 1.--seat belt use by county and individual observation sites
continued.

Percent
County, Identification Number of using
Federal functional class number, observations seatbeltsb

Volusia

Rural interstate 212 406 49.5 4.9

Walton

Rural interstate 155 403 57.3 +4.8



*The station number shown is that used by the Florida Department of
Transportation to identify traffic count locations.

bConfidence limits were computed at the 95 percent probability level.










Appendix Table 2.--Numbers of observations for various demographic and other
descriptive variables.
'~ '.% --- ----, H H H ---
Percent
of
Category Observations Category
(Number)

Location

Rural 8,524 28.2

Urban 21.685 71.8

Totals 30,209 100.0

Occupant

Driver 22,689 75.1

Rider 7.520 24.9

Totals 30,209 100.0

Race

White 25,867 86.3

Black 3,297 11.0

Hispanics 823 2.7

Totals 29,987 100.0

Gender
Male 16,641 55.3

Female 13.427 44.7

Totals 30,068 100.0

Vehicle type

Car 22,344 74.0

Truck 5,591 18.5

Van 2.272 7.5

Totals 30,207 100.0

Registration

Florida 28,048 92.9

Out-of-state 2.156 7.1

Totals 30,204 100.0


Continued








Appendix Table 2.--Numbers of observations for various demographic and other
descriptive variables continued.

Percent
of
Category Observations Category

(Number)

Time of day

Morning 14,492 48.0

Afternoon 15.717 52.0

Totals 30,209 100.0

Time of week

Weekday 22,152 73.3

Weekend 8.057 26.7

Totals 30,209 100.0


All observations 30, 209 100. 0


All observations


30,209


100.0








































APPENDIX B

1990 Observational Survey Coding sheet







44

1990 observational survey coding Sheet


OCCUPANT RACE GENDER RESTRAINT VEHICLE AUTO REG. TIME

D=Driver B=Black M=Male B=Lap & shoulder C=Car F=FL
W=White L-Lap only
R=Right H=Hispanic F=Female I=Lap, shoulder T=Truck N-Non-FL
O=Other behind
C=Center U=Uncertain U=Uncertain shoulder only v=Van
N=None
C=CRD or booster


Location:




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs