DOCSLIB.ORG

Maryn Consulting

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Maryn Consulting DOT HS 811 768 November 2013 Summary of Vehicle Occupant Protection and Motorcycle Laws Eleventh Edition Current as of April 1, 2012 This publication is distributed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in the interest of information exchange. The opinions, findings and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the Department of Transportation or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The United States Government assumes no liability for its content or use thereof. If trade or manufacturers’ names or products are mentioned, it is because they are considered essential to the object of the publication and should not be construed as an endorsement. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... iii Key Provisions Chart of State Occupant Protection Laws ............................... v Key Provisions Chart of State Motorcycle Safety Laws .................................... x ALABAMA ............................................................................................................. 1 ALASKA ................................................................................................................. 4 ARIZONA .............................................................................................................. 7 ARKANSAS ......................................................................................................... 10 CALIFORNIA ..................................................................................................... 13 COLORADO ........................................................................................................ 17 CONNECTICUT ................................................................................................. 20 DELAWARE ........................................................................................................ 23 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA .............................................................................. 26 FLORIDA ............................................................................................................. 29 GEORGIA ............................................................................................................ 33 HAWAI’I .............................................................................................................. 36 IDAHO .................................................................................................................. 39 ILLINOIS ............................................................................................................. 41 INDIANA .............................................................................................................. 44 IOWA .................................................................................................................... 47 KANSAS ............................................................................................................... 50 KENTUCKY ........................................................................................................ 53 LOUISIANA ......................................................................................................... 55 MAINE ................................................................................................................. 59 MARYLAND ....................................................................................................... 63 MASSACHUSETTS ............................................................................................ 67 MICHIGAN ......................................................................................................... 70 MINNESOTA....................................................................................................... 73 MISSISSIPPI ....................................................................................................... 77 MISSOURI ........................................................................................................... 80 MONTANA .......................................................................................................... 83 NEBRASKA ......................................................................................................... 85 NEVADA .............................................................................................................. 88 NEW HAMPSHIRE ............................................................................................ 92 NEW JERSEY ..................................................................................................... 95 NEW MEXICO .................................................................................................... 99 NHTSA Summary of Vehicle Occupant Protection Laws, 11th Edition i NEW YORK ....................................................................................................... 102 NORTH CAROLINA ........................................................................................ 106 NORTH DAKOTA ............................................................................................ 109 OHIO .................................................................................................................. 111 OKLAHOMA ..................................................................................................... 115 OREGON ........................................................................................................... 118 PENNSYLVANIA ............................................................................................. 122 PUERTO RICO ................................................................................................. 125 RHODE ISLAND .............................................................................................. 127 SOUTH CAROLINA ........................................................................................ 130 SOUTH DAKOTA ............................................................................................. 133 TENNESSEE ...................................................................................................... 136 TEXAS ................................................................................................................ 140 UTAH .................................................................................................................. 143 VERMONT ........................................................................................................ 146 VIRGINIA .......................................................................................................... 149 WASHINGTON ................................................................................................. 153 WEST VIRGINIA ............................................................................................. 156 WISCONSIN ...................................................................................................... 159 WYOMING ........................................................................................................ 163 NHTSA Summary of Vehicle Occupant Protection Laws, 11th Edition ii INTRODUCTION The National Highway Traffic Safety State fines for first time violations of seat belt Administration is responsible for reducing motor use laws vary from $5 to $250. Most States vehicle-related fatalities and injuries on our permit fines of up to $25. Nation’s highways. Research has shown that effective State and local traffic safety laws play Primary versus Secondary Seat Belt Laws: an important role in helping to reduce motor "Primary" seat belt enforcement means that a vehicle crashes. law enforcement officer has the authority to issue a citation for a failure to wear a seat belt This publication provides summary charts of the based solely on probable cause of such violation. key provisions of State occupant protection laws Note: “Primary” seat belt laws are sometimes and motorcycle laws, and detailed lists of these referred to as “standard” laws. "Secondary" laws in every State. Such laws include requiring enforcement means that such officers are only the use of (1) seat belts, (2) child passenger authorized to enforce a violation of the seat belt restraint devices, and (3) motorcycle or bicycle use law after they have first stopped a driver for helmets. Also included are laws concerning age some other law violation. restrictions for motorcycle passengers and laws that prohibit riding in the bed of a pickup truck. A National Occupant Protection Use Survey Except as noted, the status of the State laws (NOPUS), conducted in June 2011, found that reported is as of April 1, 2012. the average seat belt use rates in States with primary enforcement laws were 11 percentage OVERVIEW points higher than in States without primary enforcement laws. (On average, seat belt use Required Use of Seat Belts: was 87% in primary law States versus 76% in All States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto States without primary enforcement.) Rico have mandatory motor vehicle seat belt laws of some kind. New Hampshire is the only 15 Passenger Vans: State that does not require adults age 18 and Recently some States have begun addressing the older to wear seat belts. use of seat belts in passenger vans. In some States, this vehicle occupant protection is State seat belt use laws vary in terms
Load more

Recommended publications
  • MAKING TAXIS SAFER Managing Road Risks for Taxi Drivers, Their Passengers and Other Road Users
    MAKING TAXIS SAFER Managing road risks for taxi drivers, their passengers and other road users May 2016 About PRAISE Using the roads is a necessary part of our working lives. But it’s an ordinary activity that leads to an incredibly high level of injury and death. ETSC’s PRAISE (Preventing Road Accidents and Injuries for the Safety of Employees) project addresses the safety aspects of driving at work and driving to work. Its aim is to promote best practice in order to help employers secure high road safety standards for their employees. The project is co-ordinated by the ETSC secretariat with the support of Fundación MAPFRE, the German Road Safety Council (DVR), the Belgian Road Safety Institute (IBSR-BIVV) and the Dräger Foundation. MAKING TAXIS SAFER Contributing Experts For more information ETSC gratefully acknowledges the invaluable contributions of European Transport Safety Council the following experts in the preparation of this report: 20 Avenue des Celtes B-1040 Brussels Fernando Camarero Rodríguez – Fundación MAPFRE Tel: +32 2 230 4106 [email protected] Ellen Schmitz-Felten – Kooperationsstelle Hamburg IFE www.etsc.eu/praise Lieven Beyl - Belgian Road Safety Institute Jacqueline Lacroix - German Road Safety Council The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of ETSC and do not necessarily Will Murray - Interactive Driving Systems represent the views of the sponsors or the organisations to which the PRAISE experts belong. Deirdre Sinnott - Health And Safety Authority, Ireland Bettina Velten – Draeger Foundation © 2016 European Transport Safety Council MAKING TAXIS SAFER Managing road risks for taxi drivers, their passengers and other road users Authors Luana Bidasca Ellen Townsend May 2016 CONTENTS 1.
    [Show full text]
  • A Roadside Observation Study for Measuring Seat Belt & Child
    A Roadside Observation Study for Measuring Seat Belt & Child Restraint Use in Namibia Vanessa Beutel, Alexandra Chretien, Melissa Daigle, Michael Morlock A Roadside Observation Study for Measuring Seat Belt & Child Restraint Use in Namibia An Interactive Qualifying Project submitted to the Faculty of WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science by Vanessa Beutel Alexandra Chretien Melissa Daigle Michael Morlock Date: May 2017 Report Submitted to: Motor Vehicle Accident Fund Automobile Association of Namibia Professor Sarah Jane Wodin-Schwartz Professor Robert Kinicki Worcester Polytechnic Institute This report represents work of WPI undergraduate students submitted to the faculty as evidence of a degree requirement. WPI routinely publishes these reports on its web site without editorial or peer review. For more information about the projects program at WPI, see http://www.wpi.edu/Academics/Projects Acknowledgements The team would like to thank the Motor Vehicle Accident Fund (MVA Fund) of Namibia, the Automobile Association of Namibia (AA), and the Namibian Police Force (NAMPOL) for providing valuable insight throughout the project term. Additionally, the project team would like to thank the following people for their valuable insight and cooperation throughout the project period: Jones Lutombi – Manager of Accident and Injury Prevention at the MVA Fund, for serving as the sponsor liaison to the project. Hileni Tjivikua – General Manager at the AA, for continuous support and input throughout the project. Allu Hailonga – Driver Education Instructor at the AA, for providing effective observation locations throughout Windhoek as well as guidance regarding public education. Heroldt Gaseb – Head of Accident and Injury Prevention at the MVA Fund, for connecting the project team with law enforcement agencies in Windhoek.
    [Show full text]
  • Contributory Negligence in Promotion of Safety Belt Use
    Transportation Research Record 844 57 Table 3. Restraint program results of attitude measures­ Pre program/ Preprogram/ mean scores. Pre­ Post­ Postprogram Follow-Up Program program program Difference Follow-Up Difference Information 12.2 16.5 +4.3 8 Testimonial 13.1 16.7 +3.68 Vehicle 11.9 15.3 +3.48 15.2 +3.38 Convincer 12.4 14.1 +1.1• 14.5 +2.1• ap < o.os. information, testimonial, and vehicle programs the program to communicate effectively and (b) large produced significant gains in knowledge about, atti­ day-to-day variation in prevailing restraint use. tudes toward, and use of restraints. How long these From the results obtained, the following conclu­ gains were sustained could be determined only for sions may be offered: the vehicle program. However, the fact that gains realized through this program appeared to endure is 1. It is possible to influence the use of safety encouraging. restraints among teenage drivers by means of an The vehicle program appeared to produce the most in-school program; substantial gains in restraint use. However, it 2. Communication of factual information about would be dangerous to make comparisons. The fact restraints and the risks associated with failure to that the program use rate was highest among students use them are necessary elements of any program; and who received the vehicle program may be an indica­ 3. More research is needed to determine whether tion that they were a more responsive group than any additional benefit is derived from experiencing those who received the other programs. the consequences of nonuse through operation of a The effectiveness of the convincer program is vehicle, a ride in a convincer, or the testimony of difficult to evaluate.
    [Show full text]
  • Speed Limits, Seat Belt Use, and Drinking-And-Driving
    Driver Attitudes and Choices: Speed Limits, Seat Belt Use, and Drinking-and-Driving Young-Jun Kweon Associate Research Scientist Virginia Transportation Research Council Young- [email protected] Virginia Transportation Research Council 530 Edgemont Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 Phone: 434-293-1949 Fax: 434-293-1990 and Kara M. Kockelman (Corresponding Author) Associate Professor of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering The University of Texas at Austin [email protected] The University of Texas at Austin 6.9 E. Cockrell Jr. Hall Austin, TX 78712-1076 Phone: 512-471-0210 Fax: 512-475-8744 The following paper is a pre-print and the final publication can be found in Journal of the Transportation Research Forum 45 (3):39-56, 2006. Presented at the 82nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, January 2004 Abstract A better understanding of attitudes and behavioral principles underlying driving behavior and traffic safety issues can contribute to design and policy solutions, such as, speed limits and seat belt legislation. This work examines the Motor Vehicle Occupant Safety Surveys (MVOSS) data set to illuminate drivers’ seatbelt use, driving speed choices, drinking-and-driving tendencies, along with their attitudes towards speed limits and seat belt laws. Ordered probit, negative binomial, and linear regression models were used for the data analysis, and several interesting results emerged. For example, persons of higher income and with a college education prefer higher speeds, are more likely to use a seat belt, and are more likely to support seat belt laws and/or higher speed limits. However, persons with a college education also tend to drink and drive more often.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Factors Research on Seat Belt Assurance Systems DISCLAIMER
    DOT HS 812 838 February 2020 Human Factors Research On Seat Belt Assurance Systems DISCLAIMER This publication is distributed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in the interest of information exchange. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Department of Transportation or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. If trade or manufacturers’ names are mentioned, it is only because they are considered essential to the object of the publication and should not be construed as an endorsement. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Suggested APA Format Citation: Bao, S., Funkhouser, D., Buonarosa, M. L., Gilbert, M., LeBlanc, D., & Ward, N. (2020, February). Human factors research on seat belt assurance systems (Report No. DOT HS 812 838). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. DOT HS 812 838 Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Human Factors Research on Seat Belt Assurance Systems February 2020 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Authors 8. Performing Organization Report No. Shan Bao, Dillon Funkhouser, Mary Lynn Buonarosa, Mark Gilbert, Dave LeBlanc, all UMTRI, and Nicholas Ward, Western Transportation Institute, Montana State University Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute 11. Contract or Grant No. 2901 Baxter Road DTNH22-11-D-00236, Task Order Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2150 #13 12.
    [Show full text]
  • Road Safety - Safety Restraints
    Road safety - Safety restraints The use of seat-belts has been one of the most In low-income and middle-income countries effective road safety measures ever imple- usage rates are generally much lower: mented, saving more lives than any other — In Kenya, a study found that only 1% of car intervention. The lack or inappropriate use of occupants injured in crashes were wearing seat-belts and other safety restraints (child seats seat-belts. and booster seats) have been shown to be risk — In Argentina, only 26% of front-seat passen- factors for the fatalities and injuries that result gers in Buenos Aires wear seat-belts. from road crashes. Failure to use seat-belts is a major contributing factor to road fatalities. The effectiveness of SEAT-BELT WEARING seat-belts depends upon the type and severity of the crash and the seating position of the Rates of seat-belt use vary between countries, passenger. depending on the existence and enforcement Correctly used seat-belts reduce the risk of of laws: death in a crash by approximately 61%. — In 1995, front-seat wearing rates in European — Seat-belt usage is substantially lower in fatal Union countries ranged from 52% to 92%, crashes than in normal traffic. For example, and rear-seat wearing rates from 9% to 80%. about 90% of drivers in Finland wear seat- — In the Canadian province of Saskatchewan, belts, while driver seat-belt wearing in fatal the use of seat-belts among vehicle drivers collisions is about 55%. rose incrementally from around 70% in — Seat-belts are most effective in roll-over 1988 to more than 90% in 1994, while belt crashes and frontal collisions, and in lower use among front-seat passengers remained speed crashes.
    [Show full text]
  • Nebraska Department of Transportation
    ` NEBRASKA Occupant Protection Program Assessment MARCH 1 - 6, 2020 ASSESSMENT TEAM MEMBERS MARIAN ADAMS CYNTHIA BURCH VERA FULLAWAY JANA SIMPLER NORRAINE WINGFIELD TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................................... 5 ASSESSMENT BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................. 6 KEY RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................. 8 1. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................................... 11 1A. STRENGTHS ............................................................................................................................... 11 1B. CHALLENGES ............................................................................................................................ 12 1C. RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................. 13 2. LEGISLATION/REGULATION AND POLICY ............................................................................. 15 2A. STRENGTHS ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • RESTRAINT USAGE AMONG CRASH-INVOLVED MOTOR VEHICLE OCCUPANTS Alexander C. Wagenaar
    RESTRAINT USAGE AMONG CRASH-INVOLVED MOTOR VEHICLE OCCUPANTS Alexander C. Wagenaar FEBRUARY 1984 The University of Michigan UMTRI Transportation Research Institute 1. Report No. 2. k..-l Accessien Nm. 3. Reaptent's Cetmlog No. UMTRI-84-2 4. Title d Subtitle 5. Rmport Dote February 1984 Restraint Usage Among Crash-involved Motor Vehicle Occupants 6. Pufomiw Or~~ret~mCo& 8. P&ng Ovgenirmtion Repeft No. 7. Au*u's) Alexander C. Wagenaar UMTRI-84-2 9. Perhino Or~iad~onN-e md Address 10. Wed Un~tNo. (TRAIS) The University of Michigan - Transportation Research Institute 11. Contreo or Gvmt No. Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 , MDE-83-002A - 13. Type of Report and Pergod Cov*red 12. *swing &genel MI. md Address Final Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning February 1983-January 1984 111 South Capitol Avenue, Lower Level 14. Sponsoring Apency Cod* Lansing, Michigan 48913 13. Suppl-tr) Mefes 16. Absrroct Objectives of this study were to identify recent trends in restraint use in Michigan and assess the effectiveness of mandatory restraint laws in increasing the use of occupant restraint systems and decreasing traffic casualties. All reported crash-involved motor vehicle occupants in Michigan from January 1978 through December 1982 were examined. Box-Jenkins time-series analyses were used to measure trends in restraint use and 1 injuries, and to measure the effects of Michigan's mandatory child restraint law, implemented in April 1982. Restraint use in Michigan was found to vary considerably by age, alcohol or drug use, seating position, number of vehicle occupants, injury severity, vehicle damage severity, vehicle size and type, time of day, day of week, highway class, and county.
    [Show full text]
  • Freedom to Be Foolish? L.B
    FREEDOM TO BE FOOLISH? L.B. 496: THE MANDATORY SEAT BELT LAW INTRODUCTION On June 5, 1985, Governor Kerrey signed Legislative Bill 496 ("L.B. 496")' into law,2 and Nebraska joined the bandwagon of seven- teen other states that have enacted mandatory seat belt laws.3 The intense debate on the bill involved a confrontation between those senators seeking to reduce deaths and injuries on the state's roads and those senators who, although acknowledging the law's noble objectives, nonetheless opposed the law as an improper governmental intrusion into the realm of individual decisionmaking. 4 As enacted, the law raises the fundamental issues of the proper scope of the state's police power and the nature of the relationship between gov- ernment and the individual. With similar legislation pending before other state legislatures, these issues are important not only for Ne- braska, but also for the nation. This Comment examines Nebraska's mandatory seat belt law. The Comment first reviews the "means" and the "ends" of the law by surveying each provision of L.B. 496 and the evils that each was intended to remedy. 5 Second, the Comment probes the important constitutional and public policy issues presented by so-called "self- protective" legislation.6 Finally, the Comment analyzes L.B. 496 in terms of how well its provisions do or do not advance the law's 7 objectives. 1. L.B. 496, 89th Leg. 1st Sess., 1984-85 Neb. laws 966 (codified at NEB. REV. STAT. §§ 39-6,103.04 to -6,103.08 (Supp. 1985)). 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Seat Belts and Child Passenger Safety
    TRANSPORTATION Traffic Safety Review: Seat Belts and Child Passenger Safety APRIL | 2019 Traffic Safety Review: Seat Belts and Child Passenger Safety BY ANNIE KITCH The National Conference of State Legislatures is the bipartisan organization dedicated to serving the lawmakers and staffs of the nation’s 50 states, its commonwealths and territories. NCSL provides research, technical assistance and opportunities for policymakers to exchange ideas on the most pressing state issues, and is an effective and respected advocate for the interests of the states in the American federal system. Its objectives are: • Improve the quality and effectiveness of state legislatures • Promote policy innovation and communication among state legislatures • Ensure state legislatures a strong, cohesive voice in the federal system The conference operates from offices in Denver, Colorado and Washington, D.C. NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES © 2019 NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES ii Executive Summary We’ve all heard that buckling up is one of the most effective methods to protect ourselves in a car crash. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), more than 37,000 lives were lost on U.S. roads in 2017 due to motor vehicle crashes. NHTSA indicates that the national seat belt use rate was 89.6 percent in 2018, a statistically insignificant decrease from 89.7 in 2017. However, among the oc- cupants of passenger vehicles killed in 2017 where it was known whether they were wearing a seat belt, 47 percent were unrestrained. Given these statistics, lawmakers are actively debating proposals to increase passengers’ safety in the event of a crash. Since 2015, state legislatures have enacted over 40 laws related to seat belts.
    [Show full text]
  • Seat Belts and Risk Compensation
    LONDON, SATURDAY 21 SEPTEMBER 1985 MEDICAL JOURNAL Seatbelts andriskcompensation The introduction of the compulsory use of front seat belts in cyclists and pedestrians; and, though his methods are January 1983 led to big reductions in death and injuries to demonstrably wrong, the risk compensation theory is still front seat car occupants. The trend line has shifted down- being quoted as an argument for removing the seat belt ward by about 25% at the same time as the use of belts rose legislation.5 from about 40% in 1982 to over 90% after the law came in.' Research-as opposed to speculation-shows that when The seat belt law is saving about 400 lives a year and perhaps risk taking behaviour by drivers is studied those who wear 5000 casualties being admitted to hospital. This law-and seat belts (under either voluntary or mandatory regimens) in the surprisingly high level of acceptance of it by the driving fact take fewer risks than those who do not wear belts. public-must be one of the most successful pieces of public Measurements of speeds, headways, and gap acceptance (the health legislation ever. We might, therefore, expect strong time interval between cars in the approaching traffic stream pressures to extend the law to occupants of rear seats, which you accept or reject when you are turning right across coaches, and trucks, with politicians lining up to introduce it) all show that, if anything, use of belts is related to lower such lifesaving measures. Instead, some doubts have been levels of risk taking; risk compensation applied to seat belt cast on the measure because of the risk compensation use cannot be detected in actual traffic studies.67 hypothesis.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effects of Mandatory Seat Belt Laws on Driving Behavior and Traffic Fatalities
    ISSN 1045-6333 THE EFFECTS OF MANDATORY SEAT BELT LAWS ON DRIVING BEHAVIOR AND TRAFFIC FATALITIES Alma Cohen Liran Einav Discussion Paper No. 341 11/2001 Harvard Law School Cambridge, MA 02138 The Center for Law, Economics, and Business is supported by a grant from the John M. Olin Foundation. This paper can be downloaded without charge from: The Harvard John M. Olin Discussion Paper Series: http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/ Last revision: October 2001 The Effects of Mandatory Seat Belt Laws on ^ Driving Behavior and Traffic Fatalities Alma Cohen Department of Economics Harvard University [email protected] Liran Einav Department of Economics Harvard University [email protected] This paper investigates the effects of mandatory seat belt laws on driver behavior and traffic fatalities. Using a unique panel data set on seat belt usage rates in all U.S. jurisdictions, we analyze how such laws, by influencing seat belt use, affect traffic fatalities. Controlling for the endogeneity of seat belt usage, we find that it decreases overall traffic fatalities. The magnitude of this effect, however, is significantly smaller than the estimate used by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Testing the compensating behavior theory, which suggests that seat belt use also has an adverse effect on fatalities by encouraging careless driving, we find that this theory is not supported by the data. Finally, we identify factors, especially the type of enforcement used, that make seat belt laws more effective in increasing seat belt usage. JEL Classifications: C13, I12, K32, K42, R40 ^ We are grateful to Lucian Bebchuk, Gary Chamberlain, David Cutler, John Graham, Shigeo Hirano, Caroline Hoxby, Lawrence Katz, Ariel Pakes, Jack Porter, Manuel Trajtenberg, Kip Viscusi and seminars participants at Harvard University for helpful comments.
    [Show full text]