All contents copyright ©, Drive and Stay Alive, Inc., 2003 onwards, unless specified otherwise. All rights reserved.

IMPORTANT: click here to read the DISCLAIMER

Record Seat Belt Usage Among Americans

DSA Asks Questions for Clarity  (click here)

September 16, 2004

A record 80 percent of Americans wear their safety belts while driving or riding in their vehicles, U.S. Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta announced today during a visit to Seattle. The Secretary, while visiting Seattle's Harborview Medical Center, said the number of Americans wearing their safety belts has increased dramatically over the past few years.

In the past four years, safety belt use has increased steadily from 71 percent in 2000 to 80 percent this year.^{1 & 2} 

The 80 percent safety belt usage will save 15,200 lives and $50 billion in economic costs associated with traffic related crashes, injuries, and deaths every year, Mineta said.

The Secretary said the success was due in large part to states that have passed primary safety belt laws. Twenty-one states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have primary safety belt laws that allow police officers to stop a motorist solely for not wearing a safety belt.

The Secretary chose to visit Washington for the announcement to tout its success, noting 94 percent of the state's citizens buckle up. Washington passed a primary seatbelt law in 2002 and experienced a 9 percent reduction in overall traffic fatalities since the law was passed, he said.

"It's no coincidence that because 8 out of 10 Americans are wearing their safety belts, we have also achieved the lowest traffic fatality rate on our Nation's highways since record-keeping began 29 years ago," Mineta said.

Today's traffic fatality rate is 1.48 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled, a dramatic reduction since 1975 when the rate was 3.35 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled.

Source: DOT 173-04

Back to Top of Page

Drive and Stay Alive contacted DOT spokesman Rae Tyson, on September 17, 2004, to ask two questions:

1.  Was the wearing rate obtained from crash data or from actual observations of moving vehicles?

     Mr. Tyson:  "From observing vehicles."

2.  What was the variation in usage rates between front-seat and rear-seat occupants?

     Mr. Tyson:  "I believe the data refers only to front-seat occupants."

 DSA Comments  

The answer to our second question was a bit disappointing, firstly because if only front-seat occupants are included the 80 percent figure can not be seen as a true reflection of overall seatbelt use in the U.S.A.

And secondly, it is disappointing because many countries are now providing separate figures for front- and rear-seat occupants (as those rates inevitably differ).  It is important that both be monitored in order to adequately promote and pursue rear seatbelt usage, as well as front seatbelt usage, in order to avoid excessive danger not only to people traveling in the back but also to the people they are sitting behind. The popular phrase for un-belted people in rear seats is "back seat bullets" as they have a frequent tendency to kill the person in front of them when thrown forward in a collision.

The other aspect of this press release upon which we will comment is the fact that the US DOT has only quoted the rate of deaths relative to Vehicle Miles Traveled (the 'VMT rate'). Sadly, this seems inevitable; the DOT rarely quotes anything else. But the VMT rate categorically does not give the full picture and is arguably a very convenient method for hiding the true scale of the problem.

Most other developed nations seemingly prefer to quote deaths relative to population, and this is done on the basis of deaths per 100,000 people. This is the 'per capita' rate and gives a very important, additional insight into any country's performance in terms of relative road safety.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has 30 member-countries of which the USA is one.

Each year, the OECD publishes the International Road Traffic and Accidents Database (IRTAD) in which are shown the per capita rates for all thirty countries and the VMT rates for 26 countries (26 for 2002, up from from just 9 for 2001). View tables here

In the IRTAD tables for 2002 (latest available figures), the USA holds 9^th position in the VMT rankings and a dismal 26^th= in the per capita rankings. (See a summary for 1988-2002 here.)

With no disrespect intended, it is our hope at Drive and Stay Alive that the US DOT will broaden its ideal as to what constitutes 'success' in road safety.

At present, the DOT is focused entirely on reducing the VMT rate from its current level of 1.48 deaths per 100 million Vehicle Miles Traveled to 1.00, by the year 2008. Yet given that the number of vehicles and the total mileage traveled each year in the USA are growing at a significant rate, it is quite possible to have a lower VMT rate from one year to another even though more people have actually been killed. And that makes it just a numbers game. (An American example is viewable on another web page, here.) 

By comparison, the main European countries -- almost all of which already have lower per capita death rates than the USA -- have a target of reducing actual deaths by 40 percent by the year 2012, and we would argue that albeit more difficult to achieve, this is a much more worthy target.

It is our hope, therefore, that the US DOT starts talking in terms of reducing actual deaths rather than couching the issue in the smallest numbers possible.  After all, a problem involving the figures 1.48 and 1.0 does not sound very significant. But, of course, what is truly under discussion is the deaths of at least 200,000 American citizens, from 2004 through 2008 alone. (N.B. 43,000 Americans were killed in road crashes in 2003.)

Two British counties (Lothian in Scotland, and Surrey in England) have already achieved the 2012 target of a 40 percent reduction in actual deaths, and more regions and full countries will undoubtedly follow suit over the next few years. And if European countries can do it -- or at least attempt it -- why can't the USA?

120,000 deaths -- though unbelievably tragic -- would have to be better than the 200,000 anticipated American fatalities mentioned above.

The USA deservedly leads the world in many, many disciplines but road safety definitely is not one of them. For once, America should look elsewhere and learn more from the knowledge and experience that is already saving tens of thousands of lives in other developed nations around the globe.

Eddie Wren, Executive Director, Drive and Stay Alive, Inc.