ARUP
RESTRAINT USE SURVEY RURAL OPEN ROAD VICTORIA 1990-91
GR91-16
1991
RESTRAINT USE SURVEY RURAL OPEN ROAD VICTORIA 1990-91
GR 91 - 16
Prepared for Vic Roads by Arup Transportation Planning November 1991
5689 "
ISBN Numbers: 073062161 8
Available from: VIC ROADS 60 DENMARK STREET KEW VIC 3101
Phone (03) 860 2782
Fax (03) 853 0084 VIC ROADS
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
Report No. Report Date: ISBN Pages GR 91-16 November 1991 073062161 8 51
Title and Sub-title: Restraint Use Survey Rural Open Road Victoria 1990 - 91
Author(s) Type of Report & Period Covered: Amp Transportation Planning General Report 1990 - 1991
Performing Organisation(s) - Sponsoring Organisation - Amp Transportation Plaruring Research and Investigations 79 - 81 Franklin Street Road Safety Melbourne 3000 VIC ROADS Victoria Australia 290 Burwood Road Hawthorn Vic 3122 Australia.
Executive Group/Steering Committee: Working Group/Study Team: David Singleton (ARUP) Christopher Graham (ARUP) John Lambert (VIC ROADS) Christopher Tehan (ARUP) Pat Rogerson (VIC ROADS)
Abstract: The survey consists of two stages: (i) a pilot study designed to test and refine the methodology. (ii) the main survey to provide detailed information on restraint wearing rates.
_ This report describes the pilot study: methodology used, sampling and collection rates, seat belt wearing rates, and vehicle and driver profiles. It also provides details of the practical problems encountered during the pilot study and the recommended approach for the conduct of the main survey.
The results of the main survey, includes descriptions of the adopted survey methodology and survey programme, presentation of detailed seat belt wearing rates for important categories, comparisons with weekend data and references to results obtained from other recent rural Victorian seat-belt surveys.
28,594 vehicles were observed over 15 sites. 48,789 usable occupant observations were recorded. It was found that overall seat belt wearing rate on the open road in Victoria was 95.7%. Significant differences in seat belt wearing rates occurred with seating position, age, belt type and vehicle type. In comparison with the most recent Victorian rural town surveys it appears that seat belt wearing rates on rural open roads are similar to wearing rates in rural towns.
Key Words: Safety Belt, Safety, Vehicle Occupant Restraint Use*, Rural Highways
Reproduction of Form and completed page is authorised
PRI267.R&I ac Arup Transportation Planning
TABLE OF CONTENTS
"I Page Nos.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. BACKGROUND 2
3. PILOT STUDY 3
3.1 General 3 3.2 Survey Specification 3 3.2.1 Sites 3 3.2.2 Survey Duration 4 3.2.3 Division of Survey Effort 5 3.2.4 Sample Selection 5 3.2.5 Survey Design 6 3.2.6 Sampling Issues 6 3.2.7 Practical Issues 7 3.3 Analysis 8 3.3.1 Sample Overview 8 3.3.2 Collection Rates 10 3.3.3 Seat Belt Wearing Rates 13 3.3.4 Vehicle Profiles 18 3.3.5 Driver Profiles 18 3.4 Summary and Conclusions 23
4. MAIN SURVEYS 24
4.1 General 24 4.2 Survey Specification 24 4.2.1 Sites 24 4.2.2 Division of Survey Effort 25 4.2.3 Sample Selection 26 4.2.4 Survey Design 26 4.2.5 Sampling Issues 26 4.2.6 Practical Issues 27 4.3 Analysis 28 4.3.1 Sample Overview 28 4.3.2 Overall Wearing Rates 30 4.3.3 Seating Position 33 4.3.4 Belt Type 34 4.3.5 Vehicle Type 34 4.3.6 Time of Day 35 4.3.7 Day of Week 36 4.3.8 Age 36 4.3.9 Sex 38 4.3.10 Weather 38 4.3.11 Multivariate Cross Tabulations of Wearing Rates 38 4.4 Comparison with Previous Surveys 47 Arup Transportation Planning
Page Nos.
5. CONCLUS,ONS 49
6. REFERENCES 51
APPENDIX - SURVEY FORMS
UST OF TABLES
PILOT STUDY
TABLE 3.1: SERVICE STATION SURVEY SCHEDULE 5 TABLE 3.2: OBSERVATION SAMPLE RATES BY SITE 8 TABLE 3.3: OBSERVATION SAMPLE RATES OF VEHICLES ENTERING SERVICE STATIONS BY SITE 9 TABLE 3.4: INTERVIEW SAMPLE RATES BY SITE 9 TABLE 3.5: INTERVIEW SAMPLE RATES OF VEHICLES ENTERING SERVICE STATIONS BY SITE 10 TABLE 3.6: VEHICLE OBSERVATIONS PER HOUR BY SITE 11 TABLE 3.7: DRIVER INTERVIEWS PER HOUR BY SITE 12 TABLE 3.8: OVERAll DAYTIME DATA COLLECTION RATES PER HOUR BY SITE 13 TABLE 3.9: WEARING RATES BY SITE 14 TABLE 3.10: WEARING RATES BY SITE· CARS AND STATION WAGONS 14 TABLE 3.11: WEARING RATES BY SEX 15 TABLE 3.12: WEARING RATES BY SEATING POSITION 16 TABLE 3.13: SITE BY VEHICLE TYPE 18 TABLE 3.14: DAILY DISTANCE TRAVELLED BY SITE 19 TABLE 3.15: DRIVER TRIP PURPOSE BY SITE 19 TABLE 3.16: LOCAL DRIVERS VERSUS OTHER DRIVERS BY SITE 20 TABLE 3.17: ANNUAL DISTANCE TRAVEllED BY SITE 21 TABLE 3.18: LICENCE TYPE HELD BY DRIVER BY SITE 21 TABLE 3.19: YEARS OF DRIVING EXPERIENCE BY SITE 22
MAIN SURVEYS
TABLE 4.1: VEHICLE OBSERVATIONS BY SITE BY VEHICLE TYPE 28 TABLE 4.2: VEHICLE OBSERVATIONS AND SAMPLING RATES BY SITE TYPE 29 TABLE 4.3: WEARING RATES BY SITE 30 TABLE 4.4: WEARING RATES BY SITE TYPE BY AADT (%) 32 TABLE 4.5: WEARING RATES BY TIME BAND BY SITE TYPE (%) 33 TABLE 4.6: WEARING RATES BY SEATING POSITION 33 TABLE 4.7: WEARING RATES BY BELT TYPE 34 TABLE 4.8: WEARING RATES BY VEHICLE TYPE 34 TABLE 4.9: WEARING RATES BY DAY OF WEEK 36 TABLE 4.10: WEARING RATES BY AGE 37 TABLE 4.11: WEARING RATES BY SEX 38 TABLE 4.12: WEARING RATES BY WEATHER 38 TABLE 4.13: WEARING RATE BY SEATING POSITION BY AGE 39 TABLE 4.14: WEARING RATE BY SEATING POSITION BY SEX 40 TABLE 4.15: WEARING RATE BY SEATING POSITION BY VEHICLE TYPE 40 TABLE 4.16: WEARING RATE BY SEATING POSITION BY BELT TYPE 41 TABLE 4.17: WEARING RATE BY SEATING POSITION BY BELT TYPE BY AGE 42 Arup Transportation Planning
Page Nos.
TABLE 4.18: WEARING RATE BY BELT TYPE BY AGE 45 TABLE 4.19: WEARING RATE BY BELT TYPE BV VEHICLE TYPE 45
TABLE 4.20: WEARING RATE BY AGE BY VEHICLE TYPE 46 TABLE 4.21: WEARING RATE BY AGE BY AADT 46 TABLE 4.22: OVERALL SEAT BELT WEARING RATES: RURAL TOWN vs RURAL OPEN ROAD CONDITIONS 47 TABLE 4.23: SEAT BELT WEARING RATES BY CATEGORY: RURAL TOWN vs RURAL OPEN ROAD CONDITIONS (%) 47
UST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1 Pilot Study Survey Sites After page 4 Figure 4.1 Main Survey Sites After page 25 Figure 4.2: Wearing Rate vs AADT 31 Figure 4.3: Wearing Rate Over Time 32 Figure 4.4: Wearing Rate by Time of Day 35 Figure 4.5: Wearing Rates by Age 37 Arup Transportation Planning
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Major componen~ of the study may be summarised as follows: -. Arup Transportation Planning was appointed by Vic Roads to:
test and refine the methodology for the study of restraint use on rural open roads through a pilot study
collect seat belt usage information at fifteen rural Victorian open road (highway) locations
PILOT STUDY
the pilot study was undertaken during November/December 1989 at six open road locations; three service stations and three construction sites
both seat belt usage data and driver profile data was collected at each type of location
the construction sites gave higher sampling rates of passing traffic than did the service stations
significantly different seat belt usage patterns were observed at the two types of survey location
although the vehicle profile at both sites was similar, the driver profile differed considerably
it was concluded that it would be inappropriate to use service stations to gather representative usage information for open road sites
it was recommended that the main surveys be conducted at construction sites
MAIN SURVEYS
the main surveys were conducted at construction sites (as recommended in the pilot study) and at open road (highway) T intersections (when suitable construction sites were not available)
28,594 vehicles were observed over all sites. 48,798 usable occupant observations were recorded
approximately 70% of passing traffic On the direction being surveyed during the period of the surveys) was sampled
overall, 95.7% of occupants were observed to be wearing seat belts. Overall wearing rates at particular sites varied between 89.0% and 98.9%
lower wearing rates appeared to occur more often on roads with lower traffic volumes
over the period of the survey, overall wearing rates were observed to have increased Arup Transportation Planning ii
significant differences in seat belt wearing rates occurred with seating position. Drivers and those passengers in the front left seat wore seat belts at a higher rate than other vehicle oa;:upants
occupants of seats fitted with inertia reel belts wore them at a higher rate than occupants of seats fitted with static belts. Where child restraints were installed, they were worn at a higher than average rate
wearing rates in cars and station wagons were higher than wearing rates in utilities and vans
wearing rates did not show much variation with time of day
although the weekend sample was relatively small it appears that wearing rates on weekends are slightly higher than wearing rates on weekdays
major variations in wearing rates were observed with age. Higher then average wearing rates were observed amongst very young children. Rates were lowest amongst 5 to 7 year olds, but rose progressively with age group for older occupants
wearing rates for females were slightly higher than for males
in comparison with the most recent Victorian rural town surveys (FORS 1990) it appears that overall seat belt wearing rates on rural open roads are similar to wearing rates in rural towns. . Arup Transportation Planning 1
1. INTRODUCTION
In Septemb,er 1989, Arup Transportation Planning was appointed by the Research and Investigations Branch of Vic Roads to undertake the Restraint Use Survey - Rural Open Road, Victoria 1990-91.
The survey consists of two stages:
(i) a pilot study designed to test and refine the methodology for the study of restraint use on rural open roads
(ii) the main survey to provide detailed information on restraint wearing rates on rural open roads in Victoria.
This report provides a description of the pilot survey and covers the survey methodology used, sampling and collection rates, seat belt wearing rates, and vehicle and driver profiles. It also provides details of the practical problems encountered during the study and the recommended approach for the conduct of the main surveys.
The remainder of the report details the results of the main survey including descriptions of the adopted survey methodology and survey programme, presentation of detailed seat belt wearing rates for important categories, comparisons with weekend data and references to results obtained from other recent seat belt surveys. Arup Transportation Planning 2
2. BACKGROUND
The use of ,seat belts has been identified as a significant feature of road crashes in rural areas. Research has shown that half of air-road fatalities occur in rural areas and that 32% (during the 3 year period 1988-90) of those occupants killed in car crashes were not wearing seat belts.
It is generally recognised that the wearing of seat belts is both an effective life saver and is responsible for a reduction in head injuries in road crashes. This is recognised in the legal requirement that seat belts be fitted and worn in passenger vehicles throughout Australia. However, the effectiveness of this measure depends on the extent to which occupant restraints are worn.
In rural areas, surveys to determine occupant restraint usage have been commissioned over recent years by the Federal Office of Road Safety (FORS) and Vic Roads (1,2,4,5,6). The results of these surveys have shown that occupant restraint usage has increased considerably in rural towns. However. the extent to which seat belts are worn on rural highways was uncertain.
This report details a commission by Vic Roads to develop a methodology for the conduct of observation surveys of seat belt usage on rural highways (via a pilot study) and to use this methodology to ascertain rates of seat belt usage at 15 rural highway sites in Victoria. Arup Transportation Planning 3
3. PILOT STUDY
3.1 General 'I,
The methodology developed for the conduct of observation surveys of seat belt usage in rural towns has been used extensively by Arup Transportation Planning in a number of commissions. This methodology has been shown to provide a simple and consistent means of obtaining large samples of data. It was envisaged that a similar methodology could be employed for open road surveys at service stations and construction sites. The primary aim of the pilot study was to compare these survey sites to determine which was the more appropriate for open road surveys and the more representative of wearing rates on rural highways.
In addition to observation surveys at the pilot study sites, interviews were also conducted with drivers and occupants of vehicles to obtain driver/vehicle/trip profiles at the two types of survey site. This data, along with the seat belt usage observation data, would form the basis of the recommended survey site type for the main surveys.
3.2 Survey Specification
3.2.1 Sites
The sites used in the pilot surveys were three 24 hour service stations and three Vic Roads road construction sites. All sites were located in open road locations; i.e. outside rural towns. .
The service stations were located so that they were representative of open road conditions and did not unduly bias the sample towards a rural town environment. 24 hour operation was required to allow a comparison between night time and daytime conditions, thereby showing whether surveys would be required at both times in the main surveys to obtain a representative sample. These restrictions limited the number of service stations suitable for the survey.
In addition to being outside towns, the roadway construction sites had to meet the following criteria in order for them to be suitable for the survey:
(i) controlled by a flagman/traffic signals at all times (ii) relatively stable in terms of the traffic control, location and the actual work being undertaken (iii) scheduled to occur within the pilot study timescale.
The number of sites available within these guidelines was also limited. Ideally, for correlation purposes, it was also desirable to have the construction sites on the same sections of road as the service stations. This was difficult to achieve in view of the limitations noted above, and indeed only one suitable service station site had roadworks in the vicinity. Arup Transportation Planning 4
The following sites were selected for the pilot study surveys:
Service Stations
Carlsruhe (Shell) - Calder Highway between Woodend and Kyneton Nar Nar Goon (Esso) - Princes Highway between Dandenong and Warragul Yarroweyah (Mobil) - Murray Valley Highway between Strathmerton and Cobram
Construction Sites
Carlsruhe roadworks - Calder Highway between Wood end and Kyneton Kardella South roadworks - South Gippsland Highway between Leongatha and Korumburra Bellarine Highway resurfacing - Various locations on the Bellarine Peninsula.
Figure 3.1 shows the location of the six sites. It is considered that the selected sites provided a realistic and accurate assessment of the survey methodology. In particular, the proximity of the Carlsruhe service station and construction site permitted direct comparison of the two different survey site location types.
3.2.2 Survey Duration
The surveys at all six sites were conducted over as short a time frame as possible with the Carlsruhe sites surveyed simultaneously. This enabled a direct comparison to be made between the sites. The surveys were conducted over a four week period from the 7th November to 11 th December 1989 as follows:
Service Stations
Carlsruhe - 11 th - 16th November 1989 Nar Nar Goon - 26th - 30th November 1989 Yarroweyah - 7th - 11 th November 1989
Construction Sites
Carlsruhe - 11th - 16th November 1989 Kardella South - 8th - 14th November 1989 Bellarine Highway - 5th - 11 th December 1989 I I
II I I I : I: .I I "
~ an ad II~- II I I \1 i FigurE} 3.1 Pilot StUdy Survey Sites Arup Transportation Planning 5 3.2.3 Division of Survey Effort Service St~tions The 24 hour operation of the service stations allowed surveying at these sites at all times of the day. The schedule used (see Table 3.1 below) saw the surveys conducted over a four day period, including three weekdays and one weekend day. Either Day 1 or Day 4 occurred on a weekend day. The 12am - 6am and 6pm. 12am (night time) shifts were surveyed once and the 6am - 12pm and 12pm - 6am (daytime) shifts were surveyed three times in the four days. This provided a total of 48 survey hours (12 hours per day) at each site. TABLE 3.1: SERVICE STATION SURVEY SCHEDULE Time Oay 1 Oay2 Oay3 Oay4 0.00 - 6.00 Shift 1 6.00 -12.00 Shift 1 Shift 2 Shift 1 12.00 • 18.00 Shift 2 Shift 1 Shift 2 18.00 - 24.00 Shift 2 Construction Sites The survey schedule at the construction sites was limited to weekdays and to road construction working hours. The actual survey hours within this framework were dependent on the control of traffic and the stage of construction at the time of the survey. All surveys were generally conducted within the hours of 8am - 5pm and total survey hours varied between 43.5 and 52.5 hours per site over a five day period. 3.2.4 Sample Selection Only passenger cars, passenger car derivatives and vans with no more than 9 seats were included in the survey, i.e. Passenger cars: sedans (cars) and station wagons Derivatives: utilities and panel vans Vans: small commercial vehicles and mini-buses with no more than three rows of seats At the service stations, vehicles were observed from one entrance only, while at construction sites, vehicles were observed as they came to a stop at the point of traffic control (flagmen, traffic lights) starting from the head of the queue. Surveyors alternated regularly between the two ends of the roadworks site to ensure that vehicles in both directions were surveyed. Arup Transportation Planning 6 3.2.5 Survey Design Survey staff, were recruited through the Commonwealth Employment Service or where available, staff from previous restraint use- surveys undertaken by Arup Transportation Planning were employed again on these surveys. These sources of survey staff have previously been used and found to be acceptable in other surveys undertaken by ATP; no difficulties were encountered on this project. Teams of four people were recruited for each service station site and a supervisor apPointed from these. The survey staff worked in pairs and each pair worked one six hour shift per day. At each site, one surveyor observed vehic~p.s and their occupants as they entered the service station and the other interviewed the driver and occupants of vehicles stopped at the service station. Drivers were interviewed about trip and travel characteristics and all occupants were asked about seat belt non-usage. The survey forms used for the observations and interviews at service stations are included in the Appendix. The observation form provided for up to six vehicle observations per page and the interview form provided for one set of interviews per vehicle O.e. one driver interview and up to eight occupant interviews). At construction sites a slightly different approach was adopted because of the shorter time available for the survey at the pOint of traffic contro/. Only one surveyor was used at each Site. This person conducted both the observations and interviews throughout the survey period. The survey form provided for the observation and interview data for each sampled vehicle. In view of the short time available whilst vehicles were stopped at the roadworks site, all drivers and only other occupants not wearing seat belts were interviewed. The survey form used at the roadworks construction sites is also shown in the Appendix. No problems were encountered in the use of the survey forms after initial briefing and training by ATP. The supervisor/surveyor at each site was responsible for the day to day management of the survey at their site and ATP supervisors liaised with the site personnel throughout the survey period. 3.2.6 Sampling Issues The survey methods adopted were designed to ensure that, as far as possible, a representative sample of vehicles in the surveyed traffic streams was observed. Although no evidence exists of sample bias, it is possible that high occupancy vehicles were undersampled or that information was collected less reliably about all occupants of such vehicles. Although it is not possible to show with absolute confidence that the sample has complete integrity or that it is unbiased to any extent, it is considered that the survey technique and detailed checking of data which was undertaken would minimise such bias. In relation to sampling rates, the variation in highway traffic volumes across the sites and the fact that surveys were undertaken during both quiet and busy periods produced differing sampling rates at each site and during some shifts. It should be noted that the major aim of the pilot study was to determine an appropriate methodology to observe seat belt wearing rates on rural highways and to determine the most appropriate type of site(s) at which to undertake the surveys. In this respect, it was Arup Transportation Planning 7 assumed at the outset that construction sites would be the most representative of restraint usage on rural highways and service stations would be used only if they yielded equivalent"results. (It should be noted that in terms of survey -ease and repeatability, service station sites were preferred). --- Apart from the potential sources of bias mentioned above, acceptance of the data set as being representative of seat belt wearing at the two site types depends on a number of assumptions: that the sites selected are representative of the range of conditions which occur at open road service stations and construction sites that the occupants of the vehicles selected were representative of all vehicle occupants at the sites surveyed. Although the means by which these assumptions could be tested lies outside the scope of this project, it is considered that the samples observed are likely to make the results representative of seat belt wearing behaviour at construction sites and open road service stations. 3.2.7 Practical Issues Several practical issues should be noted concerning the collected data and the survey conduct: survey staff indicated in debriefing that they felt the seat belt wearing information collected at night and during ~Nilight conditions was less reliable than at other times the conduct of the survey at road construction sites was very dependent on the construction programme and the work being undertaken at the time O.e. the extent of traffic contrOl). For this reason, some periods of the survey did not allow observations or interviews to be undertaken; Le. when traffic was not stopped some potential safety problems were encountered in conducting interviews at construction sites on the actual carriageway, particularly with heavy traffic flows and/or narrow roadways. survey staff indicated that visibility and the reliability of seat belt wearing information collected was reduced by various factors including heavy rain, foggy conditions and by tinted windows in vehicles survey staff also indicated that at some sites not all vehicles slowed sufficiently to allow fully reliable information to be gathered. This was particularly so at construction sites where vehicles were not always stopped long enough to complete the interviews/observations during periods of heavy rain, people were more reluctant to be interviewed and hence the sample of interviews in heavy rain were lower. Road construction sites also tended not to operate during periods of rain, hence limiting the survey to fine conditions. Arup Transportation Planning 8 It should be noted, however, that the proportion of data which may be affected by these issues is relatively small. On this basis, it is considered most unlikely that the survey results would be changed to a significant extent by these factors; Note also that many of the practical problems encountered were due to the conduct of interviews which would not form part of the main observation survey. 3.3 Analysis 3.3.1 Sample Overview Observations A total of 1,968 vehicles were observed over all sites, with an estimated total of 35,800 vehicles passing the survey site on the associated highways. The distribution of observations across survey sites and the respective sample rates of vehicles passing are shown in Table 3.2. TABLE 3.2: OBSERVATION SAMPLE RATES BY SITE Construction Sites V.hlcle. Vehicle.· Sample Observed Passing Rate (%) (one way) Carlsruhe 410 5536 7.4 Kardella South 242 2013 12.0 aeUarine Highway 210 3248 6.5 Total B62 10799 B.O Service Stations Yarroweyah 351 6000 6 Carlsruhe 229 11500 2 Nar Nar Goon 526 7500 7 Total 1106 25000 4.5 TOTAL 1968 35BOO 5.5 • Based on counts at construction sites and estimates at service stations Overall, the sample rates of passing traffic was generally higher at construction sites. The sampling rate at the Carlsruhe construction site was considerably higher than at the Carlsruhe service station and as they were fairly close together, it can be concluded that it is more efficient to use construction sites rather than service stations for observation of vehicle occupants travelling on the open road. Note, however, that at service stations, the sample rate of vehicles which actually enter the stations is very high. This is shown in Table 3.3. Arup Transportation Planning 9 TABLE 3.3: OBSERVATION SAMPLE RATES OF VEHICLES ENTERING SERVICE STATIONS BY SITE Site V.hlcle. Vehicles Entering Sample Observed Service Station. Rate (%) Yarroweyah 351 363 96.7 Carlsruhe 229 286 SO.1 Nar Nar Goon 526 557 94.4 TOTAL 1106 1206 91.7 Interviews A total of 1500 drivers were interviewed at all survey locations and the respective sample rates as a proportion of passing vehicles is shown in Table 3.4. TABLE 3.4: INTERVIEW SAMPLE RATES BY SITE Drive,. Vehicles· Sample Interviewed Passing Rate (%) (one-way) Con&truction Sites Carlsruhe 410 5538 7.4 Kardella South 242 2013 12.0 Bellarine Highway 210 3248 6.5 Total 862 10799 8.0 Service Stations Yarroweyah 253 6000 4.2 Carlsruhe 186 11500 1.6 Nar Nar Goon 199 7500 2.7 Total 638 25000 2.6 TOTAL 1500 35800 4.2 * Based on counts at construction sites and estimates at service stations At construction sites the driver was interviewed for all vehicles which were observed. The sample rate of driver interview per vehicle observation was therefore the same for a" construction sites i.e. 100%. At service stations there was one surveyor observing and another interviewing, hence the interview and observation rates were different. As the number of observations at service stations was greater than the number of driver interviews, the sample rate of driver interviews per vehicle observation at service stations was lower than for construction sites. The sample rate of vehicles entering service stations is, however, still quite high, as shown in Table 3.5. (Note that the sample rate at Nar Nar Goon is Significantly lower; this can be attributed to the higher number of vehicles entering the service station at the same time, making it difficult to interview a high proportion of drivers.) Arup Transportation Planning 10 TABLE 3.5: INTERVIEW SAMPLE RATES OF VEHICLES ENTERING SERVICE STATIONS BY SITE Site Drivers Vehicles Entering Sample Interviewed Service Station Rate (%) Yarroweyah 253 363 69.7 Cartaruhe 186 286 65.0 Her Her Goon 199 557 35.7 Total 638 1206 52.9 The Carlsruhe site highlights the difference in sample rates in that the sample rate of passing traffic at the construction site is approximately five times that of the service station. This indicates that construction sites are a more efficient means of interviewing/observing traffic on the open road. 3.3.2 Collection Rates Observations Table 3.6 shows the various rates of data collection ~.e. vehicle observations per hour) at construction sites and service stations during the day and night. Overall, slightly greater daytime observation collection rates occurred for service stations than for construction sites. This can be attributed mainly to the Nar Nar Goon site which had a very high collection rate, whilst the other two service stations had similar rates to the construction sites. At Carlsruhe however, the greater collection rate was observed at the construction site. The night time surveys conducted at service stations show that collection rates are much lower. This difference is particularly evident for Nar Nar Goon, and the overall rates are lower than for construction Sites during the day. Arup Transportation Planning 11 TABLE 3.6: VEHICLE OBSERVATIONS PER HOUR BY SITE ", Vehicle. Observed Survey Hours Observationsl Construction Sites· . Hour Carlsruhe 410 45 9.1 Kardella South 242 43.5 5.6 Bellarine Highway 210 52.5 4.0 Total B62 141 6.1 Service Stations Bam· 6pm (daytime) Yarroweyah 290 36 8.1 Carlsruhe 183 36 5.1 Nar Nar Goon 447 24 18.6 Total 920 96 9.6 6pm • 6am (night time) Yarroweyah 60 12 5.0 Carlsruhe 46 12 3.8 Nar Nar Goon 79 12 6.6 Total 185 36 5.1 TOTAL 1967 273 7.2 • Surveys conduaed during 'daytime' only Interviews The various rates of interview collection are shown in Table 3.7. The interview rates for construction sites are exactly the same as for observations, whilst the service station rates are lower as previously indicated. The daytime collection rates at service stations are slightly lower overall than those at construction sites, and the Carlsruhe construction site collectior: rate was almost double that of the service station. As before the night time rate is lower than the daytime rate at service stations. Arup Transportation Planning 12 TABLE 3.7: DRIVER INTERVIEWS PER HOUR BY SITE Constructio'l Sites Drivers Survey Hours Interviews/ " Interviewed -. Hour Carlsruhe 410 45 9.1 Kardella South 242 43.5 5.6 Bellarine Highway 210 52.5 4.0 Total 862 141 6.1 Service Stations 6am • 6pm (daytime) Yarroweyah 210 36 5.B Carlsruhe 146 36 4.1 Nar Nar Goon 162 24 6.8 Total 518 96 5.4 6pm • 8am (night time) Yarroweyah 43 12 3.6 Carlsruhe 40 12 3.3 Nar Nar Goon 37 12 3.1 Total 120 36 3.3 TOTAL 1500 273 5.5 Overall The combination of daytime information gathering rates and surveyor hours are detailed in Table 3.8 below. The results show that construction sites were far more efficient in terms of information gathering, and this can be attributed predominantly to the fact that the two surveyors were needed at service stations, whilst only one did both the interviewing and observing at construction sites. At Carlsruhe, where a direct comparison is possible, approximately four times as much interview and observation data was collected at the conztruction site per survey hour than at the service station. Overall there was approximately one and a half times as much information per survey hour gathered at construction sites. Arup Transportation Planning 13 TABLE 3.B: OVERALL DAYTIME DATA COLLECTION RATES PER HOUR BY SITE '" Site Drivers Interviewed Survey Hours Information/ plus Vehicles Observed Hour Construction Sites Carlsruhe 820 45 18.2 Kardella South 484 43.5 11.1 Benarine Highway 420 52.5 8.0 Total 1724 141 12.2 Service Stations Varroweyah 500 72 6.9 Carlsruhe 329 72 4.6 Nar Nar Goon S09 48 12.7 Total 1438 192 7.5 TOTAL 3162 333 10.5 3.3.3 Seat Belt Wearing Rates The following sections detail the seat belt wearing rates which were observed at each of the six sites. It should be noted that vehicle occupants with seat belt wearing not coded have been excluded from the data. Only results from the Bam-5pm period are used to ensure that comparisons made between construction sites and service stations are as valid as possible. (Construction sites generally operated only between these hours.) Seat Belt Wearing Rates - Overall Table 3.9 shows the overall wearing rates as observed at each site. There is a considerable difference between service station and construction site wearing rates (2.7%). and this difference is significant at the 95% confidence level. The difference between the Carlsruhe sites is even larger (4.1%). Arup Transportation Planning 14 TABLE 3.9: WEARING RATES BY SITE Site 'I, Sample Number Wearing % Seat Belts Construction Sites Carlsruhe 672 G55 97.5 Kardella South 321 316 98.4 BeUarine Highway 3IJ7 293 95.4 Total 1300 1264 97.2 Service Stations Yarroweyah 372 345 92.7 Carlsruhe 256 239 93.4 Nar Nar Goon 628 603 96.0 Total 1256 1187 94.5 TOTAL 2556 2451 95.9 Seat 8elt Wearing Rates· Vehicle Type Seat belt wearing rates are categorised according to vehicle type as shown in Table 3.10. It should be noted however that because of the small sample of utilities, panel vans and vans observed, only car and station wagon results are tabulated (see Section"3.3.3 for vehicle profiles). TABLE 3.10: WEARING RATES BY SITE - CARS AND STATION WAGONS Site Sample Number Wearing Seat Belts Construction Sites Carlsruhe 573 561 97.9 Kardella South 269 264 98.1 Bellarine Highway 225 220 97.8 Total 1067 1045 97.9 Service Stations Yarroweyah 289 271 93.8 Carlsruhe 223 210 94.2 Nar Nar Goon 538 522 97.0 Total 1050 1003 95.5 TOTAL 2117 2048 96.7 From previous seat belt usage studies, it has been found that wearing rates for cars and station wagons are generally slightly higher than the overall rates. From these survey results it can be seen that there is a significant difference between the wearing rates at the construction sites and service stations, and between the two Carlsruhe sites. Arup Transportation Planning 15 Seat Belt Wearing Rates - Sex Seat belt w,earing rates for male and female occupants are tabulated for each site in Table 3.11. -. Wearing rates are higher for females for all sites and the differences between males and females is generally constant. The variations between construction sites and service stations and between the two Carlsruhe sites are significant for males and just outside the 95% level for females. TABLE 3.11: WEARING RATES BY SEX Site Male Female Sex not Sample % Sample % known Construction Sites Carlsruhe 347 96.8 305 98.0 20 Kardella South 178 98.3 138 98.6 5 Bellarine Highway 162 94.4 145 96.6 o Total 687 96.7 5B8 97.8 25 Service Stations Yarroweyah 231 SO.9 138 95.7 3 Carlsruhe 141 92.9 108 95.4 7 Nar Nar Goon 335 95.2 281 96.8 12 Total 707 93.4 527 96.2 22 TOTAL 1394 95.0 1115 97.0 47 I Arup Transportation Planning 16 Seat 8elt Wearing Rates • Seating Position Wearing rates by seating position are tabulated in Table 3.12 "below. The difference between wearing rates at construction sites and service stations is again evident by seating position and is significant for driver, rear centre, all front positions and all rear positions. TABLE 3.12: WEARING RATES BY SEATING POSITION Site Sample Number Wearing Seat Baits Construction Sites Driver 820 797 97.2 Front Centra 4 4 100.0 Front Left 314 306 97.5 Rear Right 51 50 98.0 Rear Centre 22 22 100.0 Rear Left 68 66 97.1 Other Rear 19 19 100.0 All Front Positions 1140 1107 97.1 All Rear Positions 160 157 98.1 All Positions 1300 1264 97.2 Service Stations Driver 697 659 94.5 Front Centre 11 11 100.0 Front Left 341 325 95.3 Rear Right 60 sa 96.7 Rear Centre 16 13 81.3 Rear Left 46 43 93.5 Other Rear 85 78 91.8 All Front Positions 1049 995 94.9 All Rear Positions 207 192 92.8 All Positions 1256 1187 94.5 Arup Transportation Planning 17 Seat Belt Wearing Rates - Other A number ,qf wearing rates were tested for significant variation. ·.In view of some of the sample sizes being small these comparisori-s are limited to major groupings or where the changes were significant. Between the overall service stations and construction sites the following categories also had variations in wearing rates which were significant at the 95% level: - 17 to 29 years age group - 30 to 49 years age group - Inertia belt wearers - Static belt wearers - Drivers. Between the two Carlsruhe sites, the following categories had variations in wearing rates which were significant at the 95% level: - 17 to 29 years age group - 30 to 49 years age group - Inertia belt wearers - Static belt wearers. Overall Comments - Seat Belt Wearing Rates On the basis of the above seat belt ar.3lysis of the pilot study survey data collected, the comparison between all construction sites and service stations, and between the two Carlsruhe sites, it is considered that there are significantly different seat belt wearing patterns at service stations and construction sites. Although the reasons for this variation have not been investigated as part of this study, possible reasons include: occupants undoing seat belts as they enter the service station different type of vehicle trip pattern different occupancy rates (drivers accounted for 63% of occupants at construction sites and 55.4% at service stations; Le. average car occupancies of 1.59 and 1.80 respectively) • , j Arup Transportation Planning 18 3.3.4 Vehicle Profiles The overal~ ,proportion of vehicle types observed are tabulated for- each site in Table 3.13 below. No major differences are apparent in the proportions of each vehicle type between construction sites and service stations. The Carlsruhe sites also had similar proportions. TABLE 3.13: SITE BY VEHICLE TYPE* Site Utilities/ Cars/Station Vans PanslVans Wagons (%) (%) (%) Construction Sites Carlsruhe 9.6 86.3 4.1 Kardella South 9.7 86.8 3.5 Bellarine Highway 15.7 84.3 0.0 Total 11.0 86.0 3.1 Service Stations Yarroweyah 20.5 79.0 0.5 Carlaruhe 7.2 88.8 4.0 Ner Nar Goon 7.4 86.2 6.4 Total 11.2 84.6 4.2 * Daytime surveys only (8am-Spm) 3.3.5 Driver Profiles The following information, collected from driver interviews for the daytime period (8am- 5pm), is tabulated for all service stations, all construction sites and the two Carlsruhe sites. Daily Distance Travelled As can be seen from Table 3.14, approximately 75% of drivers interviewed at service stations travelled more than 50km in the day compared to around 60% of drivers interviewed at construction sites. Similar proportions of drivers at both sites travel between 50 and 200km per day, whereas for all other categories, the proportions are significantly different at the 95% level. Overall, drivers interviewed at construction sites tended to drive smaller daily distances than drivers interviewed at the service stations. At Carlsruhe, most of the samples are too small to be able to draw conclusions, however significant differences occur for the 5O-100km and 500-1000km categories. Arup Transportation Planning 19 TABLE 3.14: DAILY DISTANCE TRAVELLED BY SITE Distance Service '" Construction Carlsruhe Travelled Stations SiteC' SS CS (Ian) 0-5 1.9%* 0.5% 1.0% 0.2% 6 -10 3.2%* 5.8% 4.8% 6.9% 11 - 20 6.6%* 11.1% 7.7% 12.7% 21 - 50 13.5%* 23.0% 13.5% 10.8% 51 - 100 15.9% 18.8% 13.5%* 22.5% 101 - 200 20.1% 20.7% 25.0% 23.5% 201 - 500 29.1%* 19.1% 28.8'l'{' 22.3% 500 -1000 8.7%* 0.9% 4.8%* 0.7% 1000+ 1.1%* 0.2% 1.0% 0.2% Total Sample 378 823 104 408 * Proportions are different at 95% level Trip Purpose Table 3.15 shows the proportion of drivers for each trip purpose across the different site types. It is clear that the trip purpose of drivers at construction sites is Significantly different from drivers at service stations. All four main categories of trip purpose had significantly different proportions at the two site types. Construction sites had around 20% of drivers with a recreational trip purpose; approximately half that of drivers interviewed at service stations. Conversely, approximately half of all interviewed drivers at construction sites were on work related trips compared to around one third at service stations. Similar variations also occurred for the two Carlsruhe sites, although there were similar proportions of drivers with local/everyday trip purposes and also holiday trip purposes for both site types. TABLE 3.15: DRIVER TRIP PURPOSE BY SITE Trip Service Construction Carlsruhe Purpose Stations Sites SS CS Local/Everyday 14.5%* 21.7% 19.2% 17.7% Work 34.6%* 49.6'% 35.6"k* 50.6% Recreational 40.1%* 20.5% 37.5%* 22.1% Holiday 7.1%* 4.5% 4.8% 4.7% Other 3.7% 3.7% 2.9% 4.9% Total Sample 379 819 104 407 * Proportions are different at 95% level Arup Transportation Planning 20 Origin of Drivers Very different proportions of local and non-local drivers were recorded at construction sites and service stations. -" Table 3.16 shows that 60.9% of drivers interviewed at service stations were not local compared to 44.1% at construction sites. A higher proportion of local drivers (55.9%) was observed at construction sites. These differences were not as large at the Carlsruhe sites. but the differences are still significant at the 95% level; over two thirds of drivers at the sArvice station and 57.6% at the construction site were visitors to the area. TABLE 3.16: LOCAl DRIVERS VERSUS OTHER DRIVERS BY SITE Driver Service Construction Carlsruhe Station Site. SS CS Local 39.1%* 55.9% 32.7%* 42.4% Visitor 60.9%· 44.1% 67.3%* 57.6% Total Sample 379 823 104 408 • Proportions are different at 95% level Annual Distance Travelled It is evident from the survey results that there is little difference between drivers at construction sites and service stations with regard to the distance they travel annually. Table 3.17 shows that overall. the proportions of drivers are similar for all categories except for the 0-500km and 5000-10000km categories. At Carlsruhe. the differences are larger and Significant differences occur for drivers who travel between 2000 and 1ooo0km annually. between 20000 and 35000km annually and over 50000km annually. Arup Transportation Plannin9 21 TABLE 3.17: ANNUAL DISTANCE TRAVELLED BY SITE Distance ", Service Construc!lon ·.Carl&ruhe Travelled Stations Sites 55 CS (km) 0-500 .0%* 1.5% .00k 2.6% 500 - 1000 1.7% 2.4% 2.1%* 1.6% 1000 - 2000 1.1% 2.4% 1.1% 2.9% 2000 - 5000 9.4% 9.5% 19.1%* 5.8% 5000 - 10000 13.9%* 18.2% 20.2%* 12.7% 10000 - 20000 27.2% 25.1% 25.5% 19.2% 20000 - 35000 21.7% 19.3% ~3.8%* 23.7% 35000 - 50000 14.2% 12.0% 11.7% 17.2% 50000+ 10.8% 9.6% 6.4%* 14.3% Total Sample 360 716 94 308 * Proportions are different at 95% level Ucence Type Table 3.18 shows that there is almost no difference of note between the proportions of drivers with each licence type at the two different site types. At Carlsruhe, a similar situation is apparent. TABLE 3.18: UCENCE TYPE HELD BY DRIVER BY SITE Licence Service Construction Carlsruhe Stations Sites SS CS Full 96.3% 97.7% 94.2% 97.1% Probationary 2.9% 2.1% 5.8% 2.7% Learners 0% 0.1% 0% 0.2% Suspended/ Cancelled 0.3% 0.1% 0% 0% None 0.5%* 0% 0% 0% Total Sample 378 820 104 408 * Proportions are different at the 95% level Years of Driving Experience Overall, it can be concluded from Table 3.19 that drivers interviewed at service stations had less experience than those at construction sites. There were significantly higher proportions of drivers with between two and ten years driving experience at service stations whilst a significantly higher proportion of drivers with 31-50 years of experience were observed at construction sites. Although some of the differences were not Significant, the same pattern is evident for the Carlsruhe sites. Arup Transportation Planning 22 TABLE 3.19: YEARS OF DRIVING EXPERIENCE BY SITE ", Years Service ConStruction Carlsruhe Stations Sites S5 C5 <1 2.9% 1.6% 3.8% 2.2% 2-5 10.4%* 7.2% 5.8% 6.4% 6 -10 16.5%* 10.3% 21.2%* 9.6% 11 - 20 282% 31.5% 32.7% 33.3"1, 21 -30 242% 22.3% 26.9% 22.7% 31 -50 17.0%* 25.0% 9.6%* 24.4% 50+ 0.8% 2.1% .0% 1.5% Total Sample 376 819 104 406 • Proportions are different at the 95% level Overall Comments Based on the above data, there are a number of significant variations in the driver profiles between construction sites and service stations. Broadly, these differences were: Drivers at service station tended to travel longer daily distances The trip purpose of drivers at service stations was more recreational and" holiday based compared to that at construction sites which was more work-related A much higher proportion of ncn-Iocal drivers was observed at service stations Drivers interviewed at service stations had fewer years driving experience. Similar differences occurred for the Carlsruhe sites, with the additional variation that distances travelled annually by drivers tended to be higher overall at the construction site. Although the reasons for these variations have not been investigated as part ofthis study, possible reasons include: service stations are logical "break of journey- points on longer trips on a given trip, the requirement to stop for a -break" or fuel is less likely if the trip is short higher recreational trip and therefore car occupancy (need to stop) observed at service stations road travel related recreational journeys may be more prevalent amongst younger age groups due to financial constraints, family size etc. Based on the above analysis and interview data, it is clear that although there is little or no difference in some categories, the variations indicate that the driver profiles at service stations are not the same as those at construction sites. Arup Transportation Planning 23 3.4 Summary and Conclusions Sample ra~s, data collection rates, seat belt wearing rates and driver profiles at both service stations and construction sites have been investigated. Based on these investigations the following pOints can be made: The construction sites gave a higher sample rate of passing traffic than did the service stations. More data was collected per survey person hour at construction sites than was collected at service stations. Significantly different seat belt usage patterns were observed at the two types of sites. The vehicle profile O.e. the proportions of vehicle types) is similar for service stations and construction sites. The driver profile at service stations is not the same as the driver profile at construction sites. On the basis of the above, it is considered that vehicles stopped at a service station on an open road will be less typical of open road vehicles in terms of both seat belt usage and driver profile than will be those vehicles stopped at a construction site. . As the seat belt usage and driver profiles of vehicles stopping at service stations on these open roads appears to be significantly different from the usage and driver profiles at construction sites, it is considered inappropriate to collect ·open road· data at such service stations. On this baSis it was recommended that the main surveys be conducted at open road construction sites rather than at open road service stations. Arup Transportation Planning 24 4. MAIN SURVEYS 4.1 General", In view of the significant differences which occurred in the pilot study survey results between service stations and roadway construction sites, it was agreed that construction sites only would be used in the main surveys. It was also resolved during the latter stages of the survey that due to the lack of suitable construction sites major rural highway intersections would also be appropriate sites for observations of open road seat belt wearing behaviour. It was also assumed that these intersections would be representative of rural highway conditions. The main surveys involved observations of seat belt usage only; no interviews were conducted with vehicle occupants. The observation methodology used was similar to that used in the pilot study surveys and in previous seat belt studies. Details are set out below. 4.2 Survey Specification 4.2.1 Sites Vic Roads required that 15 sites be covered in the main surveys. The time period over which these surveys were to be completed was entirely dependent on the availability of suitable construction sites. The construction sites were again required to meet the criteria used in the pilot surveys, except that the timing of such roadworks was not a restriction, provided that the work was continuous tor a minimum period of five working days. It was also required that surveys not be undertaken during school holiday periods. During the course of the survey, it became evident that the required number of suitable construction sites was unlikely to be met within a reasonable time frame. This was mainly due to funding constraints within Vic Roads which severely restricted the amount of construction taking place in rural areas. In view of this, it was agreed that other suitable open road sites would be surveyed instead. On the basis of the pilot study, such sites as service stations or other "pull off" areas were not considered to be suitable as alternative sites. There are, however, a limited number of highway/highway intersections with configuration suitable for seat belt usage observations. Four such sites were used in the survey. ------ Arup Transportation Planning 25 The following sites were used in the main surveys: SrTE --_DATES OF SURVEY C1 Melba Hwy between Yea and Yarra Glen 28/5/90 * 1/6/90 C2 Princes Hwy West between Portland and Port Fairy 25/5/90 - 4/6/90 C3 Princes Hwy East between Orbost and Cabbage Tree Creek 29/5/90 * 6/6/90 C4 Calder Hwy/Donald * Swan Hill Rd near Dumosa 4/6/90 - 8/6/90 C5 Sth Gippsland Hwy at Tarwin River Bridge- 17/6/90 - 23/6/90 C6 Sunraysia Hwy between Laxton and Avoca 18/9/90 - 25/9/90 C7 Western Hwy between Horsham and Stawell 23/10/90 - 29/10/90 C8 Midland Hwy between Creswick and Daylesford 24/10/90 - 30/10/90 C9 Western Hwy between Trawalla and Burrumbeet 4/2/91 - 8/2/91 C10 Goulburn Valley Hwy at Murchison East 15/2/91 - 21/2/91 111 Midland Link Hwy/Maroondah Hwy* 3/3/91 - 16/3/91 112 Calder Hwy/ealder Alternative Hwv* 6/3/91 - 12/3/91 113 Goulburn Valley Hwy/Murray Valley Hwy 4/3/91 * 12/3/91 C14 Sth Gippsland Hwy between Sale and Stradbroke 3/6/91 - 7/6/91 115 Henty Hwyf,ltimmera Hwy 20/5/91 • 24/5/91 - Weekend data available The underlined highways in the above table indicate the intersection leg on which the traffic was surveyed at that particular intersection. It should also be noted that two of the construction sties (CS and C14) are in fact permanent traffic signal installations at narrow bridges rather than roadwork sit~s. Figure 4.1 shows the location of the fifteen survey sties. Overall, a good spread of sites throughOut Victoria was achieved. Where sties were located near each other and/or on the same highway, they were surveyed at different stages of the overall survey programme. Useful comparisons can therefore be made over time at these sites. Due to the seasonal nature of construction activtty and the school holiday restriction, the survey dates fall into distinct -bands-. These -bands- are as follows: "Band" Period 1 May - June 1990 2 September - October 1990 3 February - March 1991 4 May - June 1991 4.2.2 Division of Survey Effort The survey schedule at construction sites was limited to weekdays and to road construction working hours except at the sites continuously controlled by traffic signals (CS and C14) and at highway intersections (111, 112, 113 and 115). Some weekend data was collected at these sites. All surveys were conducted in daylight hours between the hours of 7.30 am and 5.00 pm. It should be noted that although the actual survey periods at construction sites were restricted to those times where traffic control was in place, the site selection procedure generally ensured that -lost time- was minimal. SITE t LOCATtON Cl C2 Melba Hwy between Yea and Yarra Glen II I C3 Princes Hwy Wesl between Portland and Port Fairy C4 PrInces Hwy East between Orbost and Cabbage Tree Creek C5 Calder Hwy/Donald • Swan Hili Ad at Dumosa C6 SIh Gippsland Hwy at TlIIWln RIver Srldge I Sunraysla Hwy between Laxton and AVoca Cl CO Western Hwy between Horsham and Slawell C9 MIdland Hwy between Creswlck and Oay/estord H--. C/O Weslern Hwy between Trawalla and Sunumbeet III Goulburn Valley Hwy al MurchIson East .12 MIdland Unk Hwy/Maroondah Hwy 113 Calda. HWY/Calde. AlternaUve Hwy C14 Goulburn Valley Hwy/Muflay Valley Hwy II 5th Gippsland Hwy between Sa/a end Slradbroke 05 Henty HWY/Wlmme,. Hwy j I~.II 1"I I I ( , iI • K ..... '-~ Figure 4.1 Main Survey Sites Arup Transportation Planning 26 4.2.3 Sample Selection As in the pilot study survey and previous occupant restraint surveys, only passenger cars, passenger car derivatives and vans with 9 'seats or fewer were included in the survey. Where possible, surveyors alternated regularly between ends of the construction site or bridge to ensure vehicles in both directional streams were surveyed. At highway intersections, only vehicles required to stop or slow sufficiently to be observed were surveyed. 4.2.4 Survey Design Survey staff were recruited from the Commonwealth Employment Service or from staff used in previous Arup Transportation Planning surveys. One surveyor was recruited for each site and where possible, staff from previous restraint use surveys undertaken by ATP were employed on these surveys. Due to the sporadic nature of the survey timing, it was possible to employ the same staff at several sites throughout the survey period. Uaison between survey staff and ATP supervisors occurred on a regular basis. Generally, no difficulties were encountered in this survey except for the following minor practicalities: at site C2, due to the unavailability of the initially recruited surveyor, a reserve was called on to complete the survey, introducing a delay of one day at this site. The survey was further delayed by O:'1e day due to practicalities associated with the construction site work programme the survey at site 111 was completed over a two week period to accommodate staff availability due to difficulties with the reliability of the data initially collected at site C14, the survey at this site was repeated by another surveyor. The survey was conducted in a very similar manner to the pilot study survey except that observations only were made. This enabled higher sampling rates to be obtained. The survey form used was the same as that used in the observation component of the pilot survey at service stations. 4.2.5 Sampling Issues The sampling issues raised in Section 3.2.6 apply equally to the main survey. There was no evidence to suggest that any further sources of bias were introduced in this survey. During the course of the survey, a second site type (highway intersections) was introduced to expedite completion of the study. They were found to be satisfactory in terms of collecting observation data, but as they were all T-intersections, they were limited in that vehicles in one direction only were able to be surveyed. Comparisons of data collected at these sites and construction sites are discussed in Section 4.3. Arup Transportation Planning 27 4.2.6 Practical Issues A number 01 practical issues which should be nClted with respect to the collected data and the survey conduct are set out below: -- survey staff indicated in debriefing that they felt the seat belt wearing information collected at night and during twilight conditions was less reliable than at other times the conduct of the survey at road construction sites was very dependent on the road gang and the work being undertaken at the time (ie. the extent of traffic control). For this reason, some periods of the survey did not allow observations to be undertaken survey staff indicated that visibility and the reliability of seat belt wearing information collected was reduced by various factors including heavy rain, foggy conditions and by tinted windows in vehicles. At site C1, very few observations were obtained on one day due to foggy conditions survey staff also indicated that at some sites not all vehicles slowed sufficiently to allow fully reliable information to be gathered. In particular, at highway intersections vehicles were not always stopped long enough to complete the observations road construction sites tended not to operate during periods of rain, hence limiting much of the survey at these sites to fine conditions. As in the pilot survey, the proportion of data which may be affected by these issues is relatively small. On this basis, it is con~idered most unlikely that the survey results would be changed to a significant extent by these factors. Arup Transportation Planning 28 4.3 Analysis 4.3.1 Sample Ov"rview A total of 28,594 vehicles was observed over all survey sites, yielding information for a total of 49,178 occupants. Of these occupants, 380 (0.8%) occupant observations were excluded from the analysis because survey staff were unsure if seat belts were being used or an invalid response was recorded. This yields a total of 48,798 usable occupant observations. The distribution of vehicle observations across survey sites and vehicle types is shown in Table 4.1. High proportions of the total vehicle sample were obtained from sites C9, C10 and C14 whilst a high proportion of utilities and panel vans were observed at sites C2, C3 and C14. In addition, very few vans were observed at sites C1 and C10. The proportion of cars and station wagons· observed varied from 71.5% at site C3 to 87.4% at site C10. Similar proportions of vehicle types were observed at the two site types overall. TABLE 4.1: VEHICLE OBSERVATIONS BY SITE BY VEHICLE TYPE Vehicle Type Site Utilities, Cars, Station Vans All Panel Vans Wagons Vehicles Number % Number % Number % Number % C1 Melba Hwy 104 14.2 828 85.7 1 0.1 733 2.6 C2 Princes Hwy West 401 23.8 1233 73.3 48 2.9 1682 5.9 C3 Princes Hwy East 246 25.8 682 71.5 26 2.7 954 3.4 C4 Calder Hwy 102 9.7 912 86.4 41 3.9 1055 3.7 C5 Sth Gippsland Hwy 432 16.8 1968 76.5 173 6.7 2573 9.1 C6 Sunraysia Hwy 122 14.9 646 78.9 51 6.2 819 2.9 C7 Western Hwy 328 15.8 1714 82.4 39 1.9 2081 7.4 C8 Midland Hwy 216 13.2 1287 78.8 130 8.0 1633 5.8 C9 Western Hwy 487 16.0 2431 79.7 132 4.3 3050 10.8 C10 Goulbum Valley Hwy 516 12.3 3669 87.4 15 0.4 4200 14.9 111 Midland Unk Hwy 208 13.2 1303 82.8 62 3.9 1573 5.6 112 Calder Ait Hwy 465 18.4 1960 77.7 97 3.8 2522 8.9 113 Goulbum Valley Hwy 84 8.2 879 86.2 57 5.6 1020 3.6 C14 8th Gippsland Hwy 593 20.1 2276 77.2 SO 2.7 2949 10.4 115 Wimmera Hwy 226 15.9 1158 81.3 41 2.9 1425 5.0 Construction Sites 3547 16.3 17445 SO.3 738 3.4 21279 76.9 Highway Intersections 981 15.0 5300 81.0 257 3.9 6540 23.1 TOtal 4530 16.0 22746 SO.5 993 3.5 28269 100.0 Missing Observations 325 Total Vehicle Observations 28594 Counts of vehicles passing the survey site in the direction being surveyed were also undertaken. A total of 39,699 vehicles was counted passing all sites during the survey. The distribution of vehicle observations across all sites and the respective sampling rates are shown in Table 4.2. Arup Transportation Planning 29 TABLE 4.2: VEHICLE OBSERVATIONS AND SAMPUNG RATES BY SITE TYPE Site Type ", Site Construction Sites Highway Intersections Observed Count Rate'" Observed Count Rate % C'1 Melba Hwy 745 1513 49.2 C2 Princes Hwy West 1703 1837 92.7 C3 Princes Hwy East 966 1051 92.0 C4 Calder Hwy 1070 2228 48.0 C5 Sth Gippsland Hwy 2629 4581 57.4 C6 Sunraysia Hwy 830 870 95.4 C7 Westem Hwy 2092 3138 66.6 CB Midland Hwy 1643 2155 76.2 C9 Westem Hwy 306B 3360 91.3 C'10 Goulbum Valley Hwy 4245 6020 70.5 111 Midland Link Hwy 1588 1797 88.4 112 Calder Ait Hwy 2533 2819 90.0 113 Goulbum Valley Hwy 1024 1215 84.2 C'14 Sth Gippsland Hwy 2992 5503 54.4 115 Wimmera Hwy 1466 1552 92.7 Total 21983 32316 68.0 6611 7383 89.5 All Sites 28594 39699 72.0 It is apparent that a significantly higher sampling rate was achieved at. highway intersections; this is expected given that all vehicles are required to stop whereas this was not always the case at construction sites. Collection rates varied between 48.0% at site C4 (Calder Hwy) and 95.4% at site C6 (Sunraysia Hwy), indicating the large range of conditions which occurred at construction sites. The range was considerably more confined at highway intersections which had sampling rates which varied from 84.2% to 92.7%. Apart from the obvious differences in site types, the overall variation in collection rates can be attributed to a number of factors: differing highway AADTs variation in the conditions at the sites such as frequency :and length of stoppages, the sight distance at intersections (affecting the extent to which vehicles slow at a particular intersection) human factors in the conduct of observations weather conditions (e.g. fog). Arup Transportation Planning 30 4.3.2 Overall Wearing Rates All results ~re presented in the following tables as percentages of vehicle occupants (either for the whole sample or in a nominated group) who were observed wearing seat belts. Observations for which belt use could not positively be identified are excluded. In all cases, the sample size on which that estimate is based is also shown. The Z-test for proportions (3) has been used to determine the significance of any wearing rate differences between categories and is quoted wherever appropriate. The 95% level of significance has been used in all cases. Overall, 95.7% of occupants were observed to be wearing seat belts in the survey period of 12 months. Very high rates were observed on the Melba Highway (site C1), the Western Highway near Trawalla (site C9), the Calder Alternative Highway (site 112) and the Wimmera Highway near Horsham (site 115). Lower rates were observed on the Princes Highway East near Orbost (site C3), the Calder Highway at Oumosa (site C4) and the Midland Highway near Creswick (site C8). Rates varied between 89.0% and 98.9% and lower rates appeared to occur more frequently on the highways with less traffic than on those with higher volumes. The highways with the highest wearing rates all have relatively high AAOTs, however correlations between wearing rates and AAOT can not be drawn from these results with any reliability. The wearing rates for each of the sites are shown in Table 4.3, together with their approximate AAOTs (7). TABLE 4.3: WEARING RATES BY SITE Site AADT Sample Number Wearing % Seat Belts C1 Melba Hwy 2000 1224 1211 98.9 C2 Princes Hwy West 1600 2702 2518 93.2 C3 Princes Hwy East 1700 1752 1559 89.0 C4 Calder Hwy 1000 2304 2074 90.0 C5 Sth Gippsland Hwy 2500 4365 4165 95.4 C6 Sunraysia Hwy 8500 1490 1427 95.8 C7 Western Hwy 3400 3513 3327 94.7 C8 Midland Hwy 1650 2811 2551 90.8 C9 Western Hwy 4600 4871 4807 98.7 C10 Goulburn Valley Hwy 5000 6829 6632 97.1 111 Midland link Hwy 1500 2967 2838 95.7 112 Calder Ait Hwy 5024 4951 98.5 113 Goulburn Valley Hwy 2000 1965 1883 95.8 C14 Sth Gippsland Hwy 3600 4754 4567 96.1 115 Wimmera Hwy 1150 2227 2191 98.4 Construction Sites 3232 36615 3483B 95.1 Highway Intersections 1550 12183 11863 97.4 All Sites 2871 48798 46701 95.7 Spot Average 95.2 Arup Transportation Planning 31 Figure 4.2 shows the variation in wearing rates for roads in different ranges of AADT. As indicated in Table 4.4, the wearing rates generally are lower on roads with AADTs less than 2000, vpd than those with volumes between 2000 and '4000 vpd. Almost no difference was observed to exist in wearing rates versus AADT at highway intersections, altholJgh it should be noted that only a limited number of sites were available in this category. There are smaller differences in wearing rates between roads with AADTs between 2000 - 4000 vpd and those greater than 4000 vpd. < 2000 2000-4000 > 4000 MDT ~.A" Sites .. Construction Sites ~ Hwy Intersections Figure 4.2: Wearing Rate vs AAe T Arup Transportation Planning 32 TABLE 4.4: WEARING RATES BY SITE TYPE BY AADT (%) AA!lT (vpd) '" -- Site Type <2000 2000-4000 >4000 All AADTs Highway Intersections 97.1 97.2 97.1 Construction Sites SO.8 96.3 97.2 94.3 All Sites 92.9 96.S 97.2 95.2 Note: The wearing rates shown in this table are the spot averages in the various categories rather than the weighted average based on sample size. Figure 4.3 shows the variation in wearing rates through the survey period, generally indicating an upward trend with time. Although a number of factors contribute to the variation in wearing rates (e.g. site type) it is apparent that wearing rates have increased to some extent with time. Table 4.5 shows the average wearing rates at each of the site types within the time bands identified. 1nn~------~ 80 70 -~: II) 60 ctI a:- en 50 .;::c ctI 40 s:Q) 30 20 10 0 May-June 90 Sep-Oct 90 Feb-Mar 91 May-June 91 Time Band Figure 4.3: Wearing Rate Over Time Arup Transportation Planning 33 TABLE 4.5: WEARING RATES BY TIME BAND BY SITE TYPE (%) °1 Site Type Time Band Highway Construction Spot Weighted Sample Intersections Sites Average Average Size May-June 1990 (5 sites) 93.3 93.3 93.4 12347 Sep-oct 1990 (3 sites) 93.8 93.8 93.5 7814 Feb-Mar 1991 (5 sites) 96.7 97.9 97.3 97.5 21656 May-June 1991 (2 sites) 98.4 96.1 97.3 96.8 6981 Spot Average 97.6 95.3 95.3 Weighted Average 97.0 95.1 95.7 Sample Size 12183 36615 48798 4.3.3 Seating Position Wearing rates for occupant seating position are shown for all sites in Table 4.6. It should be noted that seating positions (except the driver position) were not correctly recorded at site C8 and have been included in the -Missing- category in this table. Drivers had the highest wearing rate (97.0%) followed by the front left passenger seat (96.8%). Lower rates were recorded for =entre positions (57.1% and 76.3%) and this is in accord with what has been observed in these seating positions in other surveys. However an unusually low number of occupants were recorded as sitting in. the front centre position, possibly indicating a characteristic of travelling on the open road. It should also be noted that it is possible that observation of seat belt use in centre seating positions was less reliable than side positions due to the difficulty in recording lap belt use. The proportion of wearers in the front seats was Significantly higher than in rear seats. The disparity between the spot average and the weighted average of all positions shows that the overall high wearing rate can be attributed to drivers and front left passengers and that occupants in some positions are wearing belts at relatively low rates. TABLE 4.6: WEARING RATES BY SEATING POSITION Seating Sample Number Wearing % Position Seat Belts Driver 28504 27642 97.0 Front Centre* 189 108 57.1 Front Lett* 13431 13003 96.8 Rear Sides* 4759 4333 91.0 Rear Centre* 747 570 76.3 All Front Seats* 40481 39247 97.0 All Rear Seats* 5506 4903 89.0 Missing Observations 1168 1045 89.5 All Positions 48798 46701 95.7 Spot Average 83.6 • These categories exclude observations from site C8 Arup Transportation Planning 34 4.3.4 Belt Type The observed wearing rates for each of the different types of seat belts are shown in Table 4.7. Over 84% of occupants had inertia reel belts fitted and of these 97.3% wore them. This rate is significantly higher than the wearing rate for static belts (86.3%). Child restraints were worn at very high rates although only relatively small samples were observed. It is interesting to note that the proportion of occupants with inertia reel belts fitted for their use appears to be higher than that observed in the 1989 Rural Town Restraint Use Survey (6) and that the proportions of child restraints and static belts are slightly lower. The similarity between the spot average and the weighted average indicates that wearing rates are consistently high across most belt types. Only 67 (0.1 %) of all occupants were observed to have no seat belt fitted. TABLE 4.7: WEARING RATES BY BELT TYPE BeHType Sample Number Wearing Seat BeHs Inertia Reel 41083 39990 97.3 Static 6220 536B 86.3 Child Seat 588 538 91.5 Child Harness 87 85 97.7 Booster Seat with Restraint 295 282 95.6 Booster Seat wlo Restraint 234 228 97.4 Approved Infant Restraint 200 199 99.5 None 67 0 *0.0 BeH Type Not Recorded 24 5 *20.8 All BeH Types 48798 48701 95.7 Spot Average 95.1 * Not Included in Spot Average 4.3.5 Vehicle Type Three vehicle type categories were used for the purposes of this survey; seat belt wearing rates for each of these are identified in Table 4.8. The proportions of each vehicle type are similar to those observed in earlier surveys, with 82.5% of the sample being cars or station wagons. Occupants in these vehicles wore belts at significantly higher rates than in vans, utilities or panel vans. Occupants in utilitie" and panel vans had the lowest wearing rate. Nevertheless, wearing rates appear to be fairly consistent with overall wearing rates above 90% for all vehicle types. TABLE 4.8: WEARING RATES BY VEHICLE TYPE Vehicle Sample Number Wearing % Seat BeH. UtilityIPanel Van 6262 5659 90.4 Car/Station Wagon 39739 38453 96.8 Van 2147 1968 91.7 Vehicle Type Not Recorded 650 621 *95.5 All Vehicle Types 48798 48701 95.7 Spot Average 93.0 *Not included in Spot Average Arup Transportation Planning 35 4.3.6 Time of Day Seat belt wearing rate by time of day across all sites is shown below in Figure 4.4. Very little variation was observed throughout the day. 100 - "- - 95 ------90 85 -";ft. 80 -a;CD a: CJ) 75 c: ·c . " ctI CD 70 3: Wearing Rates: 65 7am - 12pm - 95.7% 60 12pm - 5pm - 95.7% 55 50 , 7 " 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Time of Day" Figure 4.4: Wearing Rate by Time of Day Arup Transportation Planning 36 4.3.7 Day of Week No major variation is apparent in wearing rates when categorised by day of week, as shown in Table 4.9. However, the wearing rates on weekend days, particularly Sundays, are significantly higher than on weekdays. This result supports the notion that seat belts are more likely to be worn on recreational type trips (related to weekends) than on work related trips (related to weekdays) and is consistent with results obtained in previous surveys. TABLE 4.9: WEARING RATES BY DAY OF WEEK Day of Week Sample Number Wearing Seat aelta Monday 86B4 B383 96.5 Tuesday 9507 9040 95.1 Wednesday 9121 8708 95.5 Thursday 8390 7990 95.2 Friday 8605 8233 95.7 Saturday 2098 2018 96.2 Sunday 2393 2329 97.3 Weekdays 44307 42354 95.5 Weekends 4491 4347 96.8 All Days 48798 46701 95.7 Spot Average 95.9 4.3.8 Age Wearing rates show significant variation across age groups and the pattern observed is similar to that observed in previous surveys, as indicated in Figures 4.5 and Table 4.10. Children aged 1 year and younger had very high wearing rates (reflecting the high use of child restraints) whilst the 50+ age group had significantly higher rates than any other age group except children 1 year and younger. Wearing rates of occupants at or above driving age is significantly higher than those aged below driving age. The 5-7 years age group had the lowest recorded wearing rate (84.8%) followed by the 8-16 years age group (88.9%). Arup Transportation Planning 37 TABLE 4.10: WEARING RATES BY AGE Age " Sample Number Wearing % seat Betta < 1 year 333 329 98.8 2~ years 978 891 91.1 5-7 yeara 1021 BS6 84.S 8-16 years 1700 1511 88.9 17-29 years 14027 13321 95.0 30-49 years 18066 17425 96.5 50+ years 12589 12284 97.6 Age Not Recorded 84 74 .... 88.1 All Ages 48798 46701 95.7 Spot Average 93.2 *Not induded in Spot Average 100 90 80 70 -~ -CD 60 a:10 0)" 50 c ";:: CU CD 40 3: 30 20 10 0 <1 2-4 5-7 8-16 17-29 30-49 >50 Age (Years) Figure 4.5: Wearing Rates by Age Arup Transportation Planning 38 4.3.9 Sex Table 4.11 ,shows the variation in seat belt wearing rates between·sexes. Females made up 41 % of the occupant population observe"d, but wore belts at a significantly higher rate than males. TABLE 4.11: WEARING RATES BY SEX Sex Sample Number Wearing % Seat Belts Male 28374 26961 &5.0 Female 19555 18924 96.8 Sex Not Recorded 869 816 *93.9 All Ages 48798 46701 95.7 Spot Average 95.9 *Not included in Spot Average 4.3.10 Weather Over 82% of the survey observations were conducted in fine conditions and the wearing rate in this weather was the same as the overall average (95.7%) as shown in Table 4.12. Very little difference was observed for other weather conditions except in foggy conditions where wearing rates were significantly higher than in fine conditions. This may reflect a perceived increase in concern about the likelihood of an accident in such conditions. TABLE 4.12: WEARING RATES BY WEATHER Weather Sample Number Wearing % Se.t Belts Fine 40140 38401 95.7 Ught Showers 5516 5277 95.7 Heavy Showers 1323 1267 95.8 Fog 1042 1026 98.5 Weather Not Recorded 777 730 *94.0 All Weather Conditions 48798 46701 95.7 Spot Average 96.4 * Not included in Spot Average 4.3.11 Multivariate Cross Tabulations of Wearing Rates As seat belt wearing rates often vary over particular subse(,:tions of the vehicle occupant population, a number of multivariate cross tabulations of wearing rate have been produced. These are set out below. SEATING POSITION Seating position is a key variable associated with seat belt wearing rates. Differences in rates for other variables such as age and sex can often be attributed to differences in Arup Transportation Planning 39 seating position. Tables 4.13 to 4.17 detail wearing rates by seating position by age, by sex, by vehicle type by belt type and by belt type by age. 0, TABLE 4.13: WEARING RATE BY SEATING POSITION BY AGE Age <1 2-4 5-7 8-16 Seating Position Sample % Sample % Sample % Sample % Driver 0 0 0 0 Front Centre* 4 100 11 27.3 25 40.0 20 40.0 Front Left* 15 93.3 24 83.3 152 90.8 535 96.4 Rear Side.* 183 98.4 651 93.4 633 89.4 95B 89.7 Rear Centre* 119 100 210 88.6 140 65.7 120 61.7 All Front Seats* 19 94.7 35 65.7 177 83.6 555 94.4 All Rear Seats* 302 99.0 861 92.2 773 85.1 1078 86.5 Missing Observations 12 82 71 67 All Positions 333 98.8 978 91.1 1021 84.8 1700 88.9 Spot Average 97.9 73.2 71.5 72.0 Age Age not All 17-29 30-49 50+ recorded Ages Seating Position Sample % Sample % Sample % Sample Sample" % Driver 9121 96.5 12342 96.8 7014 97.8 27 28504 97.0 Front Centre* 63 58.7 42 64.3 19 84.2 5 189 57.1 Front Left* 3753 95.5 4697 96.8 4229 98.4 26 13431 96.8 Rear Sides* 738 85.0 647 91.8 929 94.9 20 4759 91.0 Rear Centre* 78 56.4 38 63.2 36 69.4 6 747 76.3 All Front Seats* 12367 96.3 16478 96.9 10792 98.3 58 40481 97.0 All Rear Seats* 816 82.2 685 90.2 965 94.0 26 5506 89.0 Missing Observations 274 300 362 0 1168 All Positions 14027 95.0 18066 96.5 12589 97.6 84 48798 95.7 Spot Average - 78.4 82.6 88.9 83.6 * These categories exdude observations from site ca Arup Transportation Planning 40 TABLE 4.14: WEARING RATE BY SEATING POSITION BY SEX Se:< " Sex not Male Female recorded All Seating Position Sample % Sample % Sample Sample % Driver 20971 96.5 7489 98.4 44 28504 97.0 Front Centre· 103 55.3 76 60.5 10 189 57.1 Front Left* 4658 94.8 8717 97.9 56 13431 96.8 Rear Sides· 1941 88.4 2285 92.6 533 4759 91.0 Rear Centre· 263 69.6 281 69.0 203 747 76.3 All Front Seats· 24584 95.5 15787 98.0 110 40481 97.0 All Rear Seats· 2204 86.1 2566 90.0 736 5506 89.0 Missing Observations 438 707 23 1168 All Positions 28374 95.0 19555 96.8 869 48798 95.7 Spot Average BO.9 83.7 - 83.6 * These categories exclude observations from site ca TABLE 4.15: WEARING RATE BY SEATING POSITION BY VEHICLE TYPE Vehicle Type Utility/ Ca:/ Not Panel Van Station Wagon Van Recorded Total Seating Position Sample '" Sample '" Sample % Sample Sample % Driver 4513 91.5 22693 98.2 98B 94.5 310 28504 97.0 Front Centre· 93 57.0 74 58.1 15 33.3 7 189 57.1 Front Left· 1460 91.0 11278 97.6 500 95.2 193 13431 96.8 Rear Sides· 98 76.5 4113 91.7 439 88.4 109 4759 91.0 Rear Centre· 15 66.7 .599 75.8 118 79.7 15 747 76.3 All Front Seats· 5850 91.4 32758 98.0 1373 95.6 500 40481 97.0 All Rear Seats· 113 75.2 4712 89.7 557 86.5 124 5506 89.0 Missing Observations 83 982 87 16 1168 All Positions 6262 90.4 39739 96.8 2417 91.7 650 48798 95.7 Spot Average - 76.5 84.3 782 83.6 • These categories exclude observations from site ca Arup Transportation Planning 41 Arup Transportation Planning 42 TABLE 4.17: WEARING RATE BY SEATING POSITION BY BELT TYPE BY AGE INERnA REEL BELTS '" Age <1 2-4 5-7 8-16 Seating Position Sample % Sample % Sample % Sample % Driver 0 0 0 0 Front Centre· Front Left· 10 90.0 7 57.1 123 93.5 463 96.8 Aear Sides· 7 71.4 43 74.4 271 92.6 594 93.6 Rear Centre· All Front Seats· 10 90.0 7 57.1 123 93.5 463 96.8 All Rear Seats· 7 71.4 43 74.4 271 92.S 594 93.6 Missing Observations 0 8 44 51 All Positions 17 82.4 58 70.7 438 91.8 1108 94.7 Spot Average SO.7 65.8 93.1 95.2 Age 17-29 30-49 50+ All Seating Position Sample % Sample % Sample % NA Sample % Driver 7941 97.5 11331 97.7 6368 98.6 20 25660 97.8 Front Centre· Front Left· 3275 96.6 4329 97.7 3911 98.8 22 12140 97.7 Rear Sides· 460 90.4 481 93.6 710 95.6 8 2574 93.1 Rear Centre· 0 All Front Seats· 10754 97.5 15128 97.8 9873 98.9 42 36400 98.0 All Rear Seats· 460 90.4 481 93.6 710 95.6 8 2574 93.1 Missing Observations 165 171 270 0 709 All Positions 11841 96.8 16312 97.5 11259 98.3 50 41083 97.3 Spot Average 94.8 96.3 97.7 962 STAnC BELTS Age <1 2-4 5-7 8-16 Sample % Sample % Sample % Sample % Driver 0 0 0 0 Front Centre· 0 6 16.7 20 45.0 16 50.0 Front Left· 4 100 1 100 21 76.2 69 942 Rear Sides· 4 100 33 72.7 218 81.2 348 85.9 Rear Centre· 2 100 28 39.3 107 59.8 114 64.0 All Front Seats· 4 100 7 28.6 41 61.0 85 85.9 All Rear Seats· 6 100 61 57.4 325 74.2 462 BO.5 Missing Observations 0 3 21 16 All Positions 10 100 71 53.5 387 73.4 563 BO.6 Spot Average 100 57.2 65.6 73.5 Arup Transportation Planning 43 TABLE 4.17 (continued) Age u, 17-29 30-49 50+ All Seating Position Sample % Sample % Sample % NR Sample % Driver 1172 90.5 991 88.8 632 91.8 1 2796 90.2 Front Centre· 62 59.7 38 71.1 15 93.3 2 159 61.6 Front Left· 473 88.4 359 88.3 315 94.0 1243 89.9 Rear Sides· 268 78.7 162 87.7 217 93.1 3 1253 84.7 Rear Centre· 75 56.0 37 64.9 36 69.4 1 400 SO.5 All Front Seats· 1599 89.3 1318 88.4 899 93.1 4 3957 89.4 All Rear Seats· 343 73.8 199 83.4 253 89.7 4 1653 78.8 Missing Observations 108 129 92 0 369 All Positions 2158 86.0 1716 88.2 1307 92.3 8 6220 86.3 Spot Average 74.7 80.2 88.3 77.4 CHILD RESTRAINTS Age <1 2-4 5-7 8-16 Seating Position Sample % Sample % Sample % Sample "" Front Centre· 4 100 3 66.7 2 50.0 0 Front Left· 1 100 15 100 7 100 0 Rear Sides· 171 99.4 573 96.2 140 98.6 0 Rear Centre· 117 100 181 96.7 29 93.1 0 All Front· 5 100 18 94.4 9 88.9 0 All Rear* 288 99.7 754 96.3 169 97.6 0 Missing Observations 12 70 6 All Positions 305 99.7 842 96.3 184 97.3 0 Spot Average 99.9 89.9 85.4 Age 17-29 30-49 50+ All Seating Position Sample % Sample % Sample % NR Sample % Front Centre· 0 0 0 7 16 62.5 Front Left* 0 0 0 10 33 81.8 Rear Sides· 0 0 0 28 912 95.8 Rear Centre· 0 0 0 11 338 96.4 All Front Seats· 0 0 0 17 49 75.5 All Rear Seats· 0 0 0 39 1250 96.0 Missing Observations 0 0 0 0 88 All Positions 0 0 0 56 1387 94.9 Spot Average 84.1 Arup Transportation Planning 44 TABLE 4.17 (Continued) NONE "I Age <1 2.41 5-7 8-16 Seating Position Sample " Sample " Sample % Sample % Driver 0 0 0 0 Front Centre· 0 2 2 2 Front Left· 0 1 0 Rear Sides· 1 2 4 7 Rear Centre· 0 1 2 2 All Front Seats· 0 3 2 3 All Rear Seats· 1 3 6 9 Missing Observations 0 0 0 0 All Positions 1 6 8 12 Age 17-29 30~9 50+ All Seating Position Sample " Sample " Sample % NR Sample % Driver 2 a 10 1 21 Front Centre· 0 3 2 0 .11 Front Left· 1 3 3 2 11 Rear Sides· 3 0 0 0 17 Rear Centre· 0 0 0 0 5 All Front Seats· 3 13 15 3 43 All Rear Seats· 3 0 0 0 22 Missing Observations 1 0 0 1 All Positions 7 14 15 4 67 • These categories exclude observations from site C8 Arup Transportation Planning 45 BELT TYPE The type ot seat belt fitted in the vehicle often plays a significant fole in the wearing rate. Tables 4.1a and 4.19 tabulate wearing rates by belt type by age and by vehicle type. TABLE 4.18: WEARING RATE BY BELT TYPE BY AGE Belt Type Inertia Reel Static Belts Child Restraint None Not All types Recorded Age Sample % Sample % Sample % Sample Sample Sample % <1 17 82.4 10 100 305 99.7 1 a 333 98.8 2-4 58 70.7 71 53.5 842 96.3 6 1 978 91.1 5-7 438 91.8 387 73.4 184 97.3 8 3 1021 84.8 8-16 1108 94.7 563 BO.6 a 12 17 1700 88.9 17-29 11841 96.8 2158 86.0 a 7 21 14027 95.0 30-49 16312 97.5 1716 88.2 a 14 24 18066 96.5 50+ 11259 98.3 1307 92.3 a 15 8 12589 97.6 Missing 50 8 17 4 5 84 All Ages 41083 97.3 6220 86.3 1348 94.9 67 79 48798 95.7 Spot Average 90.3 82.0 97.S 95.1 TABLE 4.19: WEARING RATE BY BELT TYPE BY VEHICLE TYPE Vehicle TYJM Belt Type Utility/Panel Vans Car/Station Wagon Van Sample % Sample % Sample % Sample Sample % Inertia Reel 5126 93.3 33843 98.1 1594 94.9 520 41083 97.3 Static 1063 78.6 4707 88.2 359 83.3 91 6220 86.3 Child Restraints 55 78.2 1134 96.9 179 87.2 36 1404 94.9 None 14 41 11 1 67 Missing 4 14 4 2 24 All Types 6262 90.4 39739 96.8 2147 91.7 650 48798 95.7 Spot Average 83.4 94.4 88.5 92.8 Arup Transportation Planning 46 AGE Age is also I~ significant variable in seat belt usage. Additional age related tabulations are provided in Tables 4.20 and 4.21 for wearing rates by age by vehicle type and by AADT respectively. TABLE 4.20: WEARING RATE BY AGE BY VEHICLE TYPE Vehicle Type Utilities' Cars' Vans Missing All Types PanelV.ns Station Wagons Age Sample % Sample % Sample % Sample Sample % <1 13 100 272 98.5 41 100 7 333 98.8 2-4 27 81.5 825- 91.3 103 91.3 23 978 91.1 5-7 52 63.5 80S as.7 136 86.8 24 1021 64.8 8-16 102 62.4 1392 89.9 173 83.8 33 1700 88.9 17-29 2137 89.6 11206 96.3 515 88.5 169 14027 95.0 30-49 2731 90.9 14271 97.7 844 93.8 220 18066 96.5 50+ 1192 92.5 10896 98.2 327 96.0 174 12589 97.6 Missing 8 68 8 0 64 All ages 6262 90.4 39739 96.8 2147 91.7 650 48798 95.7 Spot Average as.8 93.9 91.5 93.2 TABLE 4.21: WEARING RATE BY AGe BY AADT AADT <2000 2000 - 4000 >4000 Not Known All AADTS Age S.mple % Sample '" Sample % Sample Sample % <1 135 99.3 165 98.8 23 95.7 10 333 98.8 2-4 307 64.0 459 94.8 106 91.5 106 978 91.1 5-7 358 72.1 343 93.3 146 64.9 174 1021 64.8 8-16 496 80.4 619 922 310 92.6 275 1700 88.9 17-29 4645 92.2 5096 95.0 2604 97.3 1682 14027 95.0 30-49 5126 94.5 5596 96.1 5749 97.8 1595 18066 96.5 50+ 3661 96.3 3527 97.3 4228 98.3 1173 12589 97.6 Missing 35 16 24 9 64 All ages 14763 93.9 15821 95.8 13190 97.5 5024 48798 95.7 Spot Average 88.4 95.4 94.0 93.2 Arup Transportation Planning 47 4.4 Comparison with Previous Surveys Although npt part of this investigation, a brief overall comparison ..of the results of this survey with the Vic Roads 1989 Rural Town Restraint Use Survey and the Victorian component of the Federal Office of Road Safety Survey of Characteristics of Seat Belt Non-Wearers undertaken in 1990 has been made. A preliminary indication of whether seat belt wearing patterns in rural Victorian towns differ from those on the open road can possibly be drawn from such a comparison. The comparisons shown below in Tables 4.22 and 4.23 only include results from those six towns which were common to the two town surveys. These results show that a steady increase has been observed in wearing rates in these rural towns. TABLE 4.22: OVERALL SEAT BELT WEARING RATES: RURAL TOWN vs RURAL OPEN ROAD CONDITIONS Survey Sample Wearing Rate (%) Vic Roads 1989- 21,410 87.3 FORS 1990- 11,700 95.7 Vic Roads Open Road 1990-91 49,798 95.7 - Six Victorian towns common to both surveys only included. TABLE 4.23: SEAT BELT WEARING RATES BY CATEGORY: RURAL TOWN vs RURAL OPEN ROAD CONDITIONS (%) Rural Towns Open Road Category 1989 1990 1990-91 Sex - Male 85.1 94.2 95.0 - Female 90.2 97.3 96.8 Age - <1 yr 96.6 97.4 98.8 - 2-4 yrs 83.0 97.9 91.1 - 5-7 yrs 73.1 96.1 84.8 - 8-16 yrs 82.5 96.8 88.9 - 17-29 yrs 84.5 95.2 95.0 -30-49yrs 88.7 95.4 96.5 -50 + yrs 92.8 96.3 97.6 Vehicle Type - Utility, Panel Van n.2 89.8 90.4 - Car, Station Wagon 89.2 96.6 96.8 - Van 86.8 95.2 91.7 BeHType - Inertia Reel 90.7 96.4 97.3 - Static 74.2 90.7 86.3 - Child Restraints 92.4 99.3 94.9 Position - Driver 88.7 95.0 97.0 - Front Passenger 88.8 972 96.3 - Rear Seats 79.3 96.3 89.0 Of interest is the fact that the 1990 survey had an overall wearing rate identical to that observed Arup Transportation Planning 48 in the open road survey (95.7%). Given that the 1990 survey was conducted during the open road survey period, it appears that there is little difference in overall open road and rural town wearing patterns. Qne should however treat such a result with some caution due to the limited coverage of the rural town component and the extended period over which the open road survey was conducted. Arup Transportation Planning 49 5. CONCLUSIONS The RestraiQt Use Survey - Rural Open Road, Victoria 1990-91 successfully: I tested and refined the methodology for the study of restraint use on rural open roads through a pilot study collected seat belt usage information at 15 rural open road sites between May 1990 and June 1991. PILOT STUDY A pilot study to determine whether or not service stations would be suitable locations to obtain rural open road restraint use data was conducted. Pilot surveys were carried out at three service stations and three construction sites during November/December 1989. In addition to gathering seat belt usage data, driver interviews were conducted in order to obtain a profile of road users at each type of location. Key results of our analysis of the pilot study data collected were: the construction sites gave higher sampling rates of passing traffic than did the service stations more data was collected per survey person hour at the construction sites than was collected at the service station sites significantly different seat belt usage patterns were observed at the two types of survey location although the vehicle profile was similar at both types of survey site, the driver profile differed considerably. , In view of the above, and on the basis that the construction sites were more likely to be truly representative of actual rural open road conditions, it was considered that collection of data at service stations on rural open roads would not provide a reliable estimate of actual open road restraint usage. As a consequence it was recommended that the main surveys be conducted at construction sits on the open road. MAIN SURVEYS A total of 28,594 vehicles were observed over all sites. From these vehicles, 48,798 usable occupant observations were recorded. The overall sampling rate was in the order of 70% of passing traffic in the direction being surveyed (during the survey periods). The survey methodology used ensured that as far as possible, the vehicles observed were randomly selected and representative of the general driver vehicle population at the sites surveyed. Although a number of practical issues may have reduced the reliability of a small proportion of the data, it is considered that overall, the data collected was representative of seat belt usage at the sites surveyed at that time. The major results of the study may be summarised as follows: Arup Transportation Planning 50 Overall, 95.7% of occupants were observed to be wearing seat belts. Overall wearing rates at particular sites varied between 89.0% at the Princes Highway near Orbost and 98.9% at the M~lba Highway near Yea although the sample size was relatively small, lower wearing rates appeared to occur more often on roads with lower traffic volumes over the period of the survey, overall wearing rates were observed to have increased. As surveys were not repeated at specific sites however, this may only relate to variations between particular sites significant differences in seat belt wearing rates occurred with seating position. Drivers and those passengers in the front left seat wore seat belts at a higher rate than other vehicle occupants occupants 01 seats fitted with inertia reel belts wore them at a higher rate than occupants of seats fitted with static belts. Where child restraints were installed, they were worn at a higher than average rate wearing rates in cars and station wagons were higher than wearing rates in utilities and vans wearing rates did not show much variation with time of day although the weekend sample was relatively small it appears that wearing rates on weekends are slightly higher than wearing rates on weekdays major variations in wearing rate~ were observed with age. Higher then average wearing rates were observed amongst very young children. Rates were lowest amongst 5 to 7 year olds, but rose progressively with age group for older occupants wearing rates for females were slightly higher than for males in comparison with the most recent Victorian rural town surveys (FORS 1990) it appears that overall seat belt wearing, rates on rural open roads are similar to wearing rates in rural towns. Arup Transportation Planning 51 6. REFERENCES 1. Arup 'transportation Planning, Survey of Characteristics of Seat Belt Non-Wearers, Federal Office of Road Safety, Canberra, April 1991, CR 96 2. Cameron McNamara Pty Ltd, survey of Occupant Restraint, Federal Office of Road Safety, Canberra, 1987 3. National Association of Australia State Road Authorities (NAASRA), Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice - Part 4; Road Crashes, 1988 4. Ove Arup & Partners, Feasibility Study for a Survey of Occupant Restraint in Rural Areas, Federal Office of Road Safety, Canberra, 1986 5. Ove Arup & Partners Survey of Occupant Restraint: Stage 2, Federal Office of Road Safety. Canberra, 1988, CR 76 6. Ove Arup Transportation Planning, 1989 Rural Town Restraint Use Survey, Vic Roads, GR 90-4, April 1990 7. Road Construction Authority, 1986 Estimate of Typical Weekday Traffic Volumes on Victorian Arterial Roads, 1986. • Arup Transportation Planning APPENDIX - SURVEY FORMS Arup Transportation Planning Count I 1 41 hit ."It hi. hie hit .''It Time I I d Un 17" So. ~,. Un fl" 5.. l,. Un Tl" So. 19" Vehicle Type Q 1 * ute/panel van I ./ I I 131 1 1:.1" I',sl 1 ·1 I [OJ 2 - car/station wagon 3 - van (3 seats) NURS£O CHILO Q NU~%O CHILD Q NUitS£D CHILD Q 1 .. lt .tlt III:. IRIt. - •• It. 1 .. lt U1... T". S • .:I -'9. Uti T.rPI St. ~... Us. Typ. Sell: .,. I I I I 2e~ -I I I I ~1J I I I I J Ceou: ~ 8.. 1 t Use 8el t Type Age a f oc:~up.a" ts NURSED CHILO Q /fUP.s£D CHILD Q NURSED aULD Q ~ 1. Yes 1. Ine~tia Reel 1. ... le 1. 0-5 IIthS u... Z. No 2. Stati~ Z. Featlle 2..6I1ths-l ..1 t "It .. It hit hi t hit 3. Not SU~ 3. Child' $ Selt J. 1I0t Su~e 3. 2-4 u.. T". $.. '&9" Un T". So. A~. U.. T7pe S.. 4. Hamess (dlllds) 4. 5-7 5. Booner Seat 5. B-16 (with ~!straint) 6. 17-29 I I I I 4~1 I I I -I Atl I I I 6. Boaster Sut 7. 30·49 (without r"st~alnt) 8. 50+ NURSED CHILD Q NURSED CHILO Q DRIVER 7 • Approved Infln t Restr.int 8. None A - Interview Driver: Introduction, etc. AI. Approximately how far are you intending to drive today? (in total) A2. What 1s the purpose of your trip? I. Local/everyday, e.g. shopping PURPOSE Z. Work. related Q 3. Recreational. (day trip) 4. Holiday travel (longer than one day) 5. Other (specify) ______ A3. Are you a local resident or travelling thrc~;h this area? 1. Local LOCAL Z. Visitor(Travelling through Q A4. About how many kilometers a year would you travel on rural open roads? (lOOkm? speed zane, excluding rural towns). KMS I-J AS. What type of licence do you have? 1. Full licence 2. Probationary licence 3. learners permit LICENCE Q 4. Suspended/Cancelled licence S. No licence A6. How many years have you been driving? YEARS rn ' 8 - Interview Non-Belt wearers (as many as are not wearing) B1 For what percentage of your driving time do you not wear a seat / I I ~ I I I ~ I I I ~d belt? (%) Q B2. When you don't wear a seat belt, what is your main reason for not Q Cd wearing it? I .] I 1. Ineffective I I I I iJ I I IJ 2. Dangerous 3. Uncomfortable/hard on clothing Q Q Q 4. Belt damage/difficult to do up 5. rorget 6. Couldn't be bothered I I I ~J I I I ?d I I I"~-I 7. Only travelling short distances S. Don't need to in the back seat Q 0 bI 9. Sick or exe~ot DRiVER O. Other (sp~cifYJ PILOT STUDY· Construction Site Survey Form Arup Transportation Planning Time [ I I I I 1 - ute/panel van Vehicle Type 0 Z - car/station wagon 3 - van (3 seats) INTERVIEW SCHEDULE A - Interview Driver: Introduction, etc. AI. Approximately how far are you intending to drive today? (in total) KMS 1L-...L-'--1--....L....-J AZ. What is the purpose of your trip? 1. Local/everyday. e.g. shopping PURPOSE Z. Work related D 3. Recreational. (day trip) 4. Holiday travel (longer than one day) 5. Other (sped fy) ______ A3. Are you a local resident or travelling through this area? 1. Local LOCAL Z. Visitor/Travelling through D A4. About how many kilometers a year would you travel on rural open roads? (IOOkm+ speed Zone. excluding rural towns). KMS AS. What type of licence do you have? 1. Full 1 i cence Z. Probationary licence 3. Learners permit LICENCE 0 4. Suspended/Cancelled licence 5. No licence A6. How many years have you been driving? YEARS CD B - Interview All Occupants B1 For what percentage of your driving time do you not wear a seat I I I I I I I II I I I belt? (~) BZ. When you don't wear a seat belt. what is your main reason for not 0 0 0 wearing it? , t 1. Ineffective I I I II I I II I 1 Z Z. Dangerous o .....c::: 3. Uncomfortable/hard on clothing 0 0 0 4. Belt damage/difficult to do up S. Forget 6. Couldn't be bothered LI I I I I I II I I I 7. Only travelling short distances 8. Don't need to in the back seat 0 0 0 9. Sick or exempt O. Other (specify) ______DRIVER PILOT STUDY - S.ervice Station Interview Survey Form ARIIP TRANSPORTATION PUNNINQ Su of ~~ts ""_ of OC:CUIIUts 1. Tes 1. 1".1'1:1111.. 1 l. 110'. 1. I).S _ells 12345';?&ge 2. !fa 2. Static; z. Feoo.ale 2. 15 "ells - 1 3. Nat Sure 3. Chl1d's s.. t 3. Hat Sure 3. 2--4 123"~67e~G 4. tarneu (dl II ds } "'. 5.7 Loca ti on I 1 J. 1234507890 5. lGast... S•• t S. 8-16 (wit/l l"I!!!tr:alnt} 6. 17*,9 12345';7890 6. laaste.. Slit 7.·· 30.49 12345';789& (wit/laut "str.lnt} 8. 50+ 7. Appl'Gveoj Inflnt 123 TI .. I-J l ... vt&I ....l ". 2-ear/s::.aC1 ...... 'Iehiele TYl" 3.... (l ..... hie J I." •• 1 C. 1.1t ...... tc 0 Uu t"" Sos .... U.. T"" S...... U•• T".. S•• ...,. I.tt _U, h., •• It •• Ie '.It Tn. T,... Su ,..,. u.. Sos ...,. Uo. .. Uto Tn- S... 21 1 [ 1 I I ,J ...I I I I I r :~I I 1 1 I I· 2:!1 I I I J '"'~ ... I I I ,'- I I Hlas::!) CHIl:l Q III.:OUC:D CHILD ... ;; Q =-- 1IU:tSC:O CHI~ NUASc:D OIIUI g - Q Q :::.'"' I •• , 1.1 t I.': ..It Ioi~ hi' UU T1~. 50s ~. u.. Tn. 5...... u.. r".• s.. a.;. ..It ' •• t hit hit lott h.; U.. Tl'D' S... .,. U.. Tyg_ S... -.;. Us. T,.,. StI .,. l I I I I!~ ·1 I I ~JI 1 I I I j I I 1 I I I ,J ·1 I I I :zJ 1 I I I j IlUIlSED CHILD Q HUi'.sC:D CHILD Q NUOUED CHlD Q NURSED CHILD D HUIIS£;J CHILD ~ IIUOU,,:l c·m.o Q ..·t .... 10': I"t 1.1 t ••• t U.. T,.," 5•• .,. Uu Tn. s...... Uo. T". s.. .,. ••1 t ••It hit 1.1e Idt '41: , a.. T]" •• s.. .&0. \I •• T,.. s•• 11<1- Uu i,.. ! .. .,. [ I I .. / I I J I I I dJ .[ I I I I I I I I ,.1 I I I ~31 I I I 1 ~I NURSED CHILD Q HO~~D·CHIl~.~ ,'WItSC:D CiIlD Q NURS"O CHILD Q'. HlJRSED CHIl:! Q HVRS~l CHILD Q Time I J l-"ta/,. ..l .... Vehicle Typ. z.·""'J.stA~an "9M o , ..... (1 ...... ) 'Iehicle Tn_ htt ... It 1 .. 1 t. a_lt 1.1 t .1.1 t 1.1 t •• tlt 1.. 1 c. lei t Itlt .hlt Uu TYD' $ .. l,. UI, Trp, $0& />1' Uu Ty,. Sn ... U.. 1111_ So. .... Un T,.,. S ...... U.. T,..,. S •• ~,- 1 I I· 1 ...·1 I I I !I I :J III~ ...[ I I I .1 'I I I I ~I 1 I I I J NUItSED CHILD NU:tsEO CHILD ... ~ Q Q ~ IlURSED CHILD Q IIURSC:O aULD Q ...Q - '"''" lor: hit t "I~ lor: ... Iolt 1.1t Jolt Io't Iolt Iolt "'tU.. TYD. $ .. l,. U.. T'D. s.. Un Tn • $ .. ls. ... U.. lyg. Su 11<1- UI' T",f SUo • ...,. U.. T"" 5n ;'~I I I I I ~~ ·1 I I I ~~ I I I I ~~J I I I I J ·1 I I I J I I I I ~I nUlISED CHILO IltiitSr;;J CHILD /it.:~"O CillO D Q Q NURSEO CHILO Q NURS<:D CilLIJ Q NURSED CIlLO Q 1.1r; i .. l ~ .. ,~ hit hl~ ..It ... t a.1t ••It I.'t I.lt U.. T!,~" So. Un T,D' S.. A~~ U.. T,.. 5 .. "'t .,. .,. ';'",,- s•• 10;. UI. T, ... S.. ,..,. U•• Ty'" S•• -'<;. I I . 1 I I I I . I I ~I I ·1 I :I~I I .J r' I I ,J I 1 I 1 III I I I I J NUItSEO CHILD 0 HUIUEO CHILD Q IIIJ~"O CHILD Q lIImSEl CHILD Q NURSEO OillD Q ftURSC:£i CiiILD D TI .... I J l.-uw"... l ...!It l ...w,. .. '· ... D Z·ca ../s:.uf_ --'iOI' Z-£.Ir/I-:U.iu ""P'" Vehlc:l e Type . l_... (l10l ... ) Vehic;le Type o '""- (l ...u) i.l, .... :. ,.It •• It 1.-1:;:: e.l r. g .. Tr". s ... l,. uso Tr•• $.. l,. U.. Ty •• S.. .,. I ...1 I I I J 1 I· I ~I I I I I ~I '"~ -... 1I\!i\S~O CHILO Q NU;U"lI CIlLO Q l g . \ Iolt ... : ... ; ,.It 1 .1:. ,.1:: hit kit u.. T:t":I .. S.. ~. Un ryD'. ~ .,. u.. Tn. S.. ..,. +J lI.... T!'WIII' ~I .. r: '!.. o ·1 I I I .,~ S 1 I I I I ,J I I ts~ I I u.. I I I fl~ ft::lISEO '!tILD Hr.:~EO C."il~O Q Ir'::.sc:o C·ULD Q Q,~ W.. 1". ic-:: =- ~. - i .. ! ':. !t.~ : !t- -: !.:I ~ I.'~ U.. T'I"'':'Y s .. --:. u.. It'''' So. :.c. V•• f r ,,· SO' .... . -. . ',- J I I I ,~l I I I I l~1 I I I J't!..!~SC::l C:-H:"'!l Q IfP~*""J--~ ... ~-I·L!l_ l Q "....;"5t~ c!IL~ PILOT STUDY - Service Station Observation Survey Form MAIN SURVEYS. ~ Observation Survey Form .