S E A T B E L T S
S A V E L I V E S
Section VI
Challenges to a Standard Seat Belt Use Law
Although standard enforcement has been shown to save lives, prevent injuries and save money, some still oppose it.
If people do not know the facts, politically sensitive issues such as harassment and infrigement of individual rights may become obstacles to standard enforcement in your state.
Harassment: Differential Enforcement of Traffic Laws
Members of minority groups often feel that they are unfairly targeted by police enforcing traffic laws. This issue of differential enforcement is a serious matter. Whether it is real or perceived, it can undermine respect for traffic laws, leading to contempt for the legal process and for enforcement personnel themselves. This is unfortunate since the majority of law enforcement officers risk their lives every day to protect and defend the public.
Within segments of the African American community, there is a general perception that traffic law enforcement is used, sometimes in conjunction with drug interdiction, in a manner which unfairly singles out vehicles driven or occupied by African Americans. Prominent civil rights organizations have also complained that traffic stops involve strategies, which unfairly single out vehicles driven by African Americans. The term "Driving While Black" has sometimes been used in the news media to bring attention to this issue.
These claims, fears and perceptions of harassment cause much concern among law enforcement organizations and executives. They also feel that differential enforcement of traffic laws, based on race, is unacceptable and must be eliminated, wherever it may exist. In response, the Department of Justice and major national law enforcement organizations have initiated a dialogue with minority and civil rights groups on this issue.
Harassment in States with Primary Seat Belt Laws
Occupant protection laws and their enforcement constitute a very important component of traffic safety efforts. Forty-nine states (plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) have seat belt use laws and all 50 states (plus DC and PR) have child passenger safety laws. These laws are responsible for most of the increase that has occurred in seat belt and child safety seat use. The vast majority of the estimated 100,000 deaths and 3 million injuries that have been prevented by safety belts since 1979 have been prevented by the enactment and enforcement of seat belt and child passenger safety laws.
Over the two decades during which seat belt and child passenger safety laws have been in existence, there has been very little evidence to suggest that they have been used in any systematic way to harass minority groups. Most state seat belt laws have been secondary laws, but there has been a long history of experience in at least ten states which originally enacted primary laws and all of the state child passenger safety laws have been primary laws. Currently, there is a trend for states with secondary enforcement laws to upgrade to allow for primary enforcement. This is due to the potential for achieving much higher seat belt use rates with primary laws. As a result of recent upgrades, states such as California, Louisiana, Georgia, and Maryland (along with DC) have experienced increases in seat belt usage ranging from 10 to more than 20 percentage points. These dramatic increases in usage, often following years of little or no increase, have resulted in major public health and safety benefits among all racial and ethnic groups.
However, some individuals and organizations oppose upgrades to primary seat belt laws, claiming that such upgrades will lead to an increase in the harassment of minority groups. They cite personal experiences, court cases and incidents which have been reported in the news media as evidence of such potential for harassment. But, these opponents of such upgrades have seldom provided any evidence that primary laws have resulted in any kinds of systematic changes in enforcement activity which could be interpreted as harassment of minority groups.
Clearly the fear of primary laws is very real in minority communities and has been well documented. There is evidence from at least three states (California, Louisiana, and Georgia) that, when these states upgraded to primary laws, fear of harassment among minority groups increased -- as did their seat belt use rate. In fact, seat belt use generally increased to a greater extent among minorities than it did among whites after such upgrades. The disproportionate increases in seat belt use appear to result from the minority communities’ greater sensitivity to primary laws and their enforcement. In depth studies conducted in various communities found no evidence to show any shift in enforcement patterns which could be interpreted as harassment. In fact, increases in citations issued for seat belt violations were usually proportionately greater among whites than among minorities.
Both the Louisiana and Georgia studies found that while minority groups in each state thought their chances of getting a seat belt ticket were higher than whites, analysis of citation data in test locations revealed no differences in ticketing by race that would suggest disproportionate increases in enforcement activity among minority groups. Younger drivers, males, and those who drove more than 15,000 miles a year did receive proportionately more citations, as would be expected based on usage rates and exposure.
Additional studies are needed and thus new studies are being initiated in states which have more recently upgraded to primary enforcement. These studies will monitor enforcement activity and document any observed changes in enforcement patterns among minority groups. A multi-state study is also being conducted by a research organization that specializes in evaluating enforcement practices. This study will also examine the effect that both secondary and primary seat belt laws have on enforcement patterns.
In the meantime, many minority group legislators have supported primary law upgrades in various states because of the enormous public health and safety gains that can be made. Some of these legislators have publicly testified that, following their upgrades to primary seat belt laws, they have seen neither any backlash in their communities nor any evidence of differential enforcement of the new laws.
In Louisiana, for example, where seat belt use rose from 50 percent to 86 percent in the two years following a primary law upgrade, legislator Danny R. Mitchell described his state’s experience in a letter to the Michigan Legislature (which was considering similar legislation) as follows: "As an African-American legislator from Louisiana, I participated last spring in the debate over passage of a primary seat belt law for our state. In fact, I was one of the ten sponsors of this bill....We have surveyed the offices of several of my colleagues in the Louisiana Legislature in addition to the major police departments in the state to determine if there have been any complaints of harassment associated with enforcement of this law. I am pleased to relate to you that the record is clear on this question, there have been no reports or complaints of harassment."
In Maryland, Delegate Joanne Benson, an African American, stated that: "This is a serious public health issue. We know that three out of four kids killed in crashes are riding unrestrained. That is why I led the effort in Maryland’s Assembly to upgrade our state’s safety belt law from secondary to primary enforcement. There were concerns that primary enforcement - which really amounts to standard enforcement like every other law - could lead to police harassment. But since the law has passed, we’ve found no evidence of harassment. Safety belts save children, no matter what color they are." As a result of the efforts of Delegate Benson and others who helped enact Maryland’s primary law, seat belt use increased from 70 percent to 83 percent within the first year after enactment.
Motor Vehicle Deaths and Injuries Affect Minorities
African Americans, in particular, have much to gain from stronger seat belt laws. According to a recent national occupant protection usage survey, observed seat belt use among African Americans is more than ten percentage points lower than the national average. This low level of usage, coupled with the tendency for African Americans and Hispanic Americans to increase their seat belt usage to a greater extent than whites following an upgrade to primary enforcement, makes the potential health and safety gains to the black community even greater.
Youth, of any racial or ethnic group, have a much higher risk of being involved in a crash than do adult members of that group. Unfortunately, they also have much lower seat belt use rates. Of major concern is the fact that African American youths are not only at great risk for traffic-related injuries and death, they are far less likely than other youths to be buckled up. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), over 31 percent of black high school students reported either rarely or never wearing their seat belts, compared to 21 percent of white and 18 percent of Hispanic students.
Low seat belt use presents a major public health threat to minority communities. Many African Americans, particularly young males, are being killed and seriously injured because they do not wear seat belts. In states with secondary belt laws, seat belt use among young African American males is only about 46 percent. In states with primary belt laws, usage among this group is significantly higher -- 58 percent. Stronger belt laws can make a major difference. In states that have upgraded to primary laws, seat belt use among minority groups has not only risen to a greater extent than among whites, it has risen almost immediately after the law was upgraded.
Encourage Law Enforcement to Speak Out
In order to address this issue State and local law enforcement officials are encouraged to review and reaffirm their departmental policies and training programs to ensure that differential enforcement does not occur. They should also take special steps to let the public know that the harassment issue is one that they take very seriously and that they have policies and procedures in place to address it. The potential for harassment is an ongoing concern. It is not limited to, or created by, primary seat belt laws. Assurances from state and local law enforcement leaders across the nation that seat belt use laws will be enforced uniformly in all segments of the population can help alleviate concerns.
Individual Rights
The argument of individual rights is used in opposition to many traffic safety laws, but particularly in opposition to seat belt laws. There is little question that all traffic laws impose some degree of control on individuals because they require actions that some people do not take voluntarily. But driving is an important privilege, It is not a right.
The legitimacy of most traffic laws (e.g. driving on the right side of the highway, driving with lights on, signaling prior to turns, etc.) is often accepted because it is quite apparent that failure to obey such laws could result in serious harm to ourselves and to others. Opponents of seat belt use laws frequently claim that a person has the "right" not to use a seat belt because the only one who is likely to be injured as a result is oneself. In fact, this is not true. Unbelted occupants frequently injure other occupants in a crash; unbelted drivers have much less opportunity to control their vehicle in a crash; children riding with unbelted adults are only one-third as likely to be buckled up as are children riding with belted adults; and the cost of increased deaths and injuries associated with failure to use a seat belt is borne by all of us.
Who Pays the Cost?
When a person is injured in a traffic crash, society often absorbs the costs. In a Massachusetts case (Simon v. Sargent) that was affirmed by the United States Supreme Court in November 1972, the high court wrote, "...From the moment of injury, society picks the person up off the highway; delivers him to a municipal hospital and municipal doctors; provides him with unemployment compensation if, after recovery, he cannot replace his lost job; and, if the injury causes disability, may assume the responsibility for his and his family’s continued subsistence. We do not understand a state of mind that permits plaintiff to think that only he himself is concerned."
In fact, eighty-five percent of all medical costs for crash victims fall on society, not on the individuals involved. When crash victims are not buckled, their costs for medical treatment are on average 50 percent higher than for those who wear seat belts. Belted crash victims average 60 to 80 percent lower hospital costs than unbelted victims.
Employers also pay a high price for traffic deaths and injuries. It is estimated that employer medical spending on crash injuries is nearly $9 billion each year, and another $9 billion is spent on sick leave and life and disability insurance for crash victims. Off-the-job crash injuries alone cost employers over $14 billion a year.
