southern connecticut community traffic safety conference

Occupant Protection/Impaired DrivingConnecticut Observational and Attitudinal Data

Tara Casanova-Powell

2011 Southern Connecticut Community Traffic Safety Conference

Southern Connecticut Community Traffic Safety Conference, March 10, 2011—New Haven, CT

Occupant Protection-BackgroundOccupant Protection-Background

Seat belt use is one of the most important factors in preventing or reducing injuries to occupants involved in a crash.

Belts reduce the risk of: fatal injury by 45% and; moderate to severe injury by 50%.

Of the 21,652 occupants of passenger vehicles killed in traffic crashes in 2009 where belt use was known, an estimated 53% were not wearing seat belts.


Occupant Protection-CT Belt UseOccupant Protection-CT Belt Use

Belt use surveys have been conducted under the direction of the Connecticut Department of Transportation’s (CDOT) Transportation Safety Section (TSS) since 1995.

Statewide daytime safety belt use has increased 29 percentage points since the first comparable statewide survey in 1995.


Daytime Statewide Seat Belt UseDaytime Statewide Seat Belt Use


Seat Belt Observation SurveysSeat Belt Observation Surveys

Surveys determine statewide safety belt usage for drivers and outboard front seat passengers in passenger vehicles once during daytime hours and again at night.

Additional use rates are calculated for specific locations, type of vehicle, day and time as well as other conditions that may be associated with seat belt use.

Surveys are conducted in June directly after the national (and State) Click It or Ticket campaign at the same 100 sites every year.


Percent Seat Belt Use by Vehicle Type and YearPercent Seat Belt Use by Vehicle Type and Year

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Pass

Car69.4 71.5 74.7 78.3 76.0 78.6 82.4 83.2 84.4 84.3 86.0 85.4 87.3

Pick-Up Truck

45.9 49.7 51.3 57.0 57.5 62.2 63.1 65.3 70.7 73.5 78.2 75.5 76.2

SUV 70.1 72.7 75.1 77.6 78.1 77.1 84.5 83.9 86.3 87.0 88.3 88.2 89.3

Van 60.9 65.9 67.9 76.9 75.4 74.5 79.3 78.1 84.0 84.2 87.3 88.2 88.1


Percent Seat Belt Use by Sex and YearPercent Seat Belt Use by Sex and Year

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Male 61.5 65.2 67.9 72.4 70.6 72.4 76.7 76.4 80.7 80.8 84.2 82.8 84.8Female 75.7 77.6 80.2 81.9 80.7 82.6 87.1 87.7 87.6 88.4 88.5 89.1 90.0


Percent Seat Belt Use by Type of Day and YearPercent Seat Belt Use by Type of Day and Year

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Weekday 65.9 68.5 71.9 75.9 73.8 75.9 80.3 81.1 83.2 84.6 86.4 85.7 87.2

Weekend 69.4 72.2 72.9 76.7 77.1 78.9 82.8 80.1 84.5 80.9 83.9 84.0 85.7


The Problem of Night Belt UseThe Problem of Night Belt Use

In 2004, 25% of front seat occupant fatalities occurred between the hours of 10:00 PM and 3:59 AM

This window of time represents 25% of the day

BUT only about 12%-15% of daily traffic occurs during this time.


20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60N

oo

n1

:00

PM

2:0

0 P

M3

:00

PM

4:0

0 P

M5

:00

PM

6:0

0 P

M7

:00

PM

8:0

0 P

M9

:00

PM

10

:00

PM

11

:00

PM

Mid

nig

ht

1:0

0 A

M2

:00

AM

3:0

0 A

M4

:00

AM

5:0

0 A

M6

:00

AM

7:0

0 A

M8

:00

AM

9:0

0 A

M1

0:0

0 A

M1

1:0

0 A

M

Time

Per

cen

t B

elte

dThe Problem of Night Belt UseThe Problem of Night Belt Use

% Belted among fatally injured front seat occupants of passenger vehicles

Source: FARS 1998-2004


Night Belt UseNight Belt Use

Therefore a statewide nighttime survey was also conducted in 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2010.

This was the first weighted statewide night survey in US.

Observed at the same 100 sites.

Military grade night vision developed for urban warfare used for sites with no ambient light.


Daytime & Nighttime Belt UseDaytime & Nighttime Belt Use


2010 Daytime & Nighttime Belt Use2010 Daytime & Nighttime Belt Use

There is an overall 7 percentage point difference between daytime belt use and nighttime belt use in 2010.

This difference is greater in some instances. Men, wear their seat belts 8 percentage points less often at night than day (women show a 6 percentage point difference).

Belt use in rural locations shows a greater day to night difference than in other areas (small urban, urban and large urban).


Seat Belt Awareness SurveysSeat Belt Awareness Surveys

A one-page questionnaire is distributed during two waves in CT DMV offices and was designed to assess respondents’ knowledge and awareness of the High Visibility Enforcement campaigns (e.g. CIOT).

Enforcement runs for a two week period preceded by paid media.

The first wave of DMV surveys is conducted directly before the media begins (mid-May) and the second wave is collected directly afterward (2nd week of June).


2010 Awareness Survey Responses2010 Awareness Survey Responses

2009 W1 2009W2 2010 W1 2010W2

How often do you use seat belts when you drive/ride in a motor vehicle? (%Always) 65.9% 78.6%* 81.1% 80.4%

What are the chances of getting a ticket if you don’t wear your seatbelt? (% Always) 14.6% 16.3% 19.3% 21.5%

Do you think the Police enforce the seat belt law: (%Very strictly) 22.3% 23.7% 29.1% 30.0%

Do you think the local police enforce the seat belt law? (%Very strictly) 21.9% 22.3% 26.4% 27.0%

Have you ever received a ticket for not wearing your seat belt? (% Yes) 19.5% 13.1% 15.6% 14.7%

In the past month, have you personally experienced seat belt enforcement by police? (% Yes) 18.5% 26.9% 21.7% 29.4%*


Impaired Driving-BackgroundImpaired Driving-Background

In 2003 Connecticut launched a statewide impaired-driving publicity and enforcement campaign.

This represents the first time CT expended substantial resources for both media and enforcement in it’s efforts to reduce impaired driving and ultimately alcohol related injury and fatal crashes.


Impaired DrivingImpaired Driving


Impaired Driving-Program DescriptionImpaired Driving-Program Description

Campaign consisted of three components:Media with enforcement message.

Enhanced periods of enforcement surrounding July 4th and winter holidays focusing on the use of sobriety checkpoints.

Sustained enforcement between holiday enforcement periods.


Impaired Driving Program Description-MediaImpaired Driving Program Description-Media

$11 million was appropriated by Congress for paid media.

$5.5 million – TV air time.

For each campaign period a 4-6 week paid and earned media campaign with a strong enforcement message was implemented.

In short---HUGE


Impaired Driving Program Description-EnforcementImpaired Driving Program Description-Enforcement

Sobriety Checkpoints constituted the main focus of the enforcement effort.

Town and State Police conducted a total of 24 sobriety checkpoints during the July 4th holiday period and 51 during the winter holiday period.


Impaired Driving Campaign- EvaluationImpaired Driving Campaign- Evaluation

Various types of data were collected before and after each holiday campaign:

Telephone Surveys

Sobriety checkpoint observations/surveys

DWI Arrest Data

Alcohol-related fatality data.


Evaluation-Sobriety CheckpointsEvaluation-Sobriety Checkpoints

A

B

C

D

Police contact area/ sampling site/ counter location (One direction only).

Police staging area (sampled cars being ticketed will be interviewed here).

Traffic controller will direct sampled cars into interview area.

Interview area.

A

B D

C


Machine #:___ Refused All___ If subject pulled over, check all that apply: Warn__Belt Tckt__ CPS__ Oth Tckt__ FST__ DUI__ Oth Arrest__

Could Not Make Contact with Driver___ (still estimate age, sex, race, passengers, & vehicle type below)

Coming from: Headed to: # Miles: __ Home

__ Work __ Friend’s/relative’s house __ Restaurant/bar __ Store __ Theatre, movie, concert, game, other entertainment __ Other

__ Home __ Work __ Friend’s/relative’s house __ Restaurant/bar __ Store __ Theatre, movies, concert, game, other entertainment __ Other D

Ever been through a police checkpoint before? YES NO Day Night

In past 6 months besides this one? YES NO Do you favor the use of checkpoints by police to enforce the law against drinking and driving? YES NO Comments: Within the past month, have you seen, heard or read about any special police efforts to enforce the law against drinking and driving? YES NO If YES, where? TV Radio Newspaper Poster Brochure Other

Zip Code Where you

Live Manually Sampled? Took Alcohol Test?

YES NO YES NO, refused

ASK FOR DRUG TEST FIRST Estimate: get zip of subject if arrested—ask officer for zip on driver’s license get state off plate if REFUSE ALL

Age

__ 16-24 __ 25-34 __ 35-49 __ 50-64 __ 65+

Sex

__ M __ F

Race

__ White __ Black __ Asian __ Other Hispanic __ Yes __ No

# of Passengers __0 __1 __2 __3 __4 __5 __more

Type of vehicle

__ Passenger car __ Pick-up truck __ Minivan __ Full-size van __ SUV __ Truck __ Other

Test #: _____ Press small far right dot for the test # for this person (if took test) and record here.

Self reported from interview

Estimated from observation

From Breathalyzer

Survey instrumentCollects data

Establishes research interest

Evaluation-Sobriety CheckpointsEvaluation-Sobriety Checkpoints


Conducting the ResearchConducting the Research

EquipmentPBT- Intoxilyzer 400

Blind result

BAC does not display


Results-Telephone Awareness SurveysResults-Telephone Awareness Surveys


Results-Roadside SurveysResults-Roadside Surveys


Results-DWI ArrestsResults-DWI Arrests

Local law enforcement agencies and the State Police reported making a total of:

89 DWI arrests during the July 4th period.

731 DWI arrests for the expanded grant period.

349 DWI arrests for the winter holiday period.


Results-DWI ArrestsResults-DWI Arrests

For 2003, statewide DWI arrests totaled 11,825.

540 fewer than 12,365 in 2002.

Average BAC for those arrested in 2003 who submitted to a BAC test was .165

This average remained the same from 2002-2003.


Results-Alcohol Related FatalitiesResults-Alcohol Related Fatalities


Results-Alcohol Related FatalitiesResults-Alcohol Related Fatalities

The ARIMA model results indicated there was a significant decrease in CT’s alcohol related fatality trend following the beginning of the campaign and throughout the campaign period.

The estimated reduction in the number of alcohol related fatalities determined by the ARIMA analysis was 2.055 lives each month for 18 months-estimated 37 lives saved.

southern connecticut community traffic safety conference

Sports

daytime belt use

percent seat belt use

daytime nighttime belt

problem of night belt

statewide safety belt

additional use rates

seat belts

seat passengers