SEAT BELTS: HAVE YOU GOT THE FACTS?

MYTH #1:  Everyone already wears seat belts, so what is the big deal?
FACT:  Our belt usage rate ranks 49^th among all 50 states at 62%. This rate is the result of daytime surveys of front seat drivers and passengers. High-risk groups that drive at night, and some sections of the state buckle up at even lower rates.
MYTH #2:  Massachusetts has one of the lowest highway fatality rates in the nation and does not need a primary seat belt law.
FACT:  Massachusetts residents are actually involved in far more crashes than residents of other states. Thanks to our excellent emergency medical response system, our fatality rate from those crashes is the lowest in the nation. But we still have a serious problem: The Insurance Research Council reports that Massachusetts’ drivers filed 7.2 property damage liability claims per 100 insured cars in 2002, the nation’s highest level. And we filed 2.5 bodily injury claims, more than twice the national average.  MYTH #3:  Motor vehicle crashes are the number one cause of death among teenagers age 16-18.  Enforcing the seat belt law for everyone under 18 will solve our problem.
FACT:  In the year 2000, every Massachusetts teenager age 16-18 killed in a crash was unbelted. Motor vehicle crashes are the number one cause of death for everyone ages 0 to 34.  2002 and 2003 Massachusetts data show that the two age groups with the highest rate of ejection from vehicles are 18-20 year olds, followed closely by 21-24 year olds.
MYTH #4:  Whether to wear your seat belt or not is a personal choice.
FACT:  Obeying traffic rules on public roadways is not a matter of personal choice. We’ve had a mandatory seat belt law since 1994.  Two common long term disabling injuries suffered from unbelted crashes, traumatic brain injury and spinal cord injury, result in life long dependence on the state’s Medicaid program.  We’re all paying a high price. MassSAFE estimates that for every percent increase in belt use, we will save two lives, prevent 158 injuries and avoid $17.6 million in health care and associated costs.
MYTH #5:  If we apply the law to everyone, next we’ll have government telling us it’s not healthy to eat hamburgers and restricting that personal choice.
FACT:   In Massachusetts, all other traffic rules are primary enforcement, except for seat belts. 
21 states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have primary safety belt laws.  Primary enforcement sends a clear message that compliance with the mandatory seat belt law is essential to the safety of everyone on our roads.  Unbelted drivers unnecessarily lose control of their vehicles, posing a substantial risk to others.  Unbelted drivers and passengers become projectiles in crashes, injuring not only themselves, but also children and others in the vehicles. 
MYTH #6:  If I wear a seat belt, I may be trapped and unable to get free in a crash.
FACT:  The best way to escape a crash is to wear a seat belt and remain in control of the vehicle, and conscious after the crash.   Seat belts reduce your risk of death in a motor vehicle crash by 45%.  Airbags cushion a crash only when your seat belt secures your position directly in front of the airbag.  The recent rise in SUV rollovers increases the need to buckle up for every trip.
MYTH #7:  It’s about freedom and protecting the Constitution.  If Massachusetts passes a primary seat belt law, police would have authority to stop any vehicle they want on the mere suggestion that, “It looked like the person in the back seat did not have their seat belt on.”
FACT:  Passing a primary seat belt law will not change legal cases scrutinizing what is reasonable search and seizure, nor will it expand Massachusetts' police power. This bill will allow an officer who observes a driver or front seat passenger in violation of the current section 13A of chapter 90 of MA law to stop the vehicle and issue a $25 fine.  In 1996, in Whren v. U.S., the Supreme Court ruled that an officer can use a minor traffic infraction, real or alleged, as the reason to stop a vehicle and its passengers.  The court’s unanimous decision upheld that the temporary detention of a motorist, with probable cause to believe that the driver violated a traffic law, does not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable seizure.  Massachusetts' court decisions agree with Whren.  Arguments that police with ulterior motives use minor traffic laws to stop vehicles cannot invalidate police conduct when it is justified on the basis of probable cause.
MYTH: #8:  These types of stops lead to unreasonable car searches and arrests.
FACT:   In 1994, the Massachusetts Legislature wisely made our existing mandatory seat belt law a civil infraction, for which an arrest cannot be made. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits unreasonable search and seizure.  In contrast, the Texas Legislature categorized violations of their seat belt law a criminal offense.  A Texas woman challenged the constitutionality of the law and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it was within the Texas Legislature’s purview to make the belt law a criminal offense.  Under this primary seatbelt bill for Massachusetts, the offence remains civil, not criminal.
MYTH #9:  Police will use this law to detain minorities who they suspect are engaged in criminal conduct based on their race or nationality - racial profiling of motorists.FACT:  Racial profiling is unconstitutional and not supported.  It is an issue the Legislature and state has been working to resolve. Passing or not passing a primary seat belt bill does not solve this problem and the complex societal issues associated with it.  The public health crisis that exists on our roads disproportionately harms minorities in Massachusetts who currently buckle up at even lower rates.
MYTH: #10:  All we need is more education, not a change in the law.
FACT:  After almost 20 years of education and ten years with a mandatory belt law, education alone has not demonstrated any lasting impact on belt usage.
MYTH #11:  MA voters voted down a primary seat belt law in the 1980’s.
FACT:  The Massachusetts Legislature enacted a secondary enforcement seat belt law in 1986.  Gerry Williams, a conservative talk radio host opposed the new law and stirred up controversy and confusion.  The law was repealed by listening voters – but coincidentally supported by Western Massachusetts’ voters who were already complying with New York state’s mandatory belt law.  The Massachusetts Legislature saw fit to re-enact the secondary law in 1994, and the voters supported it
at the ballot box that same year.
MYTH #12:  If I get a seat belt citation, it will affect my motor vehicle insurance surcharge points and increase my premiums.
FACT:  The Legislature resolved this matter in 1994 when it enacted our mandatory seat belt law, by stating that this traffic rule is a non-surchageable offense. No change is proposed in this bill.
MYTH #13:  If I get in a crash without the seat belt on, my insurance company won’t pay my claim.
FACT:  The Legislature also resolved this question in 1994 when it enacted our mandatory seat belt law. Failure to wear one’s seat belt cannot be used as evidence of contributory negligence.  No change is proposed in this bill.
For more information, contact the SAFE Coalition
(617) 523-6501     www.policystrategists.com

Seatbelts Are For Everyone!

A Budget Neutral Prevention Policy
Reducing the Growing Enrollment of Non-elderly Disabled Into MassHealth:
Primary Safety Belt Law
What is the Effectiveness of Safety Belts in preventing chronic disabling injury?

1. In 2002, 2,371 people were ejected from their car in Massachusetts.  Safety belts are 99% effective in preventing ejections.

2. The leading cause of spinal cord injuries is motor vehicle crashes; accounting for 40% of all spinal cord injuries.

3. Safety belt restraints are 99% effective in preventing spinal cord injury to children involved in a motor vehicle crash

4. Safety belts are 45% effective in preventing traumatic brain injury during a motor vehicle crash

5. If Massachusetts adopted a primary safety belt law, we would observe a 11-14% increase in compliance with our law in the first year alone; at this 75% rate of belt usage we would prevent 2,052 injuries, 27 deaths and the expenditure of $221.1 million

Why Reduce the Growing MassHealth Enrollment of Non-elderly Disabled?

1. 1 in 5 MassHealth members qualify for coverage due to disability

2. Most common types of disabilities among members include:     
   1. 49% major mental illness, e.g. schizophrenia
   2. 31% physical/sensory disability, e.g. paralysis, loss of limb
   3. 13% developmental disability, e.g. mental retardation, autism

3. The number of non-elderly members is increasing, reflecting…
   1. Deliberate policy to increase coverage
   2. Growing numbers living with chronic disability and disease

4. More than ½ of the increase in MassHealth spending during the past 5 years is attributed to services for non-elderly disabled.

5. Members with disabilities frequently have multiple chronic health conditions requiring complex, coordinated, often expensive medical treatment.

6. These members tend to be enrolled in MassHealth longer than most, due to medical advances and pharmaceuticals allowing them to live longer.

7. Insurance coverage in the commercial market is limited for them

8. Since 1999 the number of members who are disabled has grown by 23,000 or 13% (virtually all are adults)

9. Overall spending on members with disabilities has grown from $1.3 billion in FY99 to $1.9 billion in FY03, representing an increase of 45% with an average annual growth rate of 10% per year.

10. MassHealth’s share of resources going to services for this population rose from 33% in FY99 to 38% in FY03.  30% of the increased spending is due to increased non-elderly disabled enrollment while 70% of the increased spending is due to the increased health care costs of caring for this complex population as a whole.

References: June 4, 2004, “Safety Belt Usage and Impact on Injury Severity and Costs,” MassSAFE analysis of 2002 Massachusetts and NHTSA motor vehicle dataEleraky MA, Theordore N, Adams M, Rekate HL, Sonntag VK. “Pediatric cervical spine injuries:  report of 102 cases and review of the literature.” Journal of Neurosurgery 2000 Jan;92(1 Suppl):12-7.June 2004, “Understanding MassHealth Members with Disabilities,” Massachusetts Medicaid Policy Institute.

    

Talking Points for Primary Belt and Minorities

I.  MINORITY SEAT BELT USE AND MOTOR VEHICLE CRASHES

Minorities, particularly young African American and Hispanic males, are disproportionately at risk of being killed or  seriously injured in  a motor vehicle crash because they do not wear seat belts.

ü      According to MassSAFE, Massachusetts communities with large minority populations show a 30% elevated ejection rate over the state average.

ü      Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for African Americans from birth through 14 years of age and are the second leading cause of death for African Americans between 15 and 24 years of age. [1]

ü      Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for Hispanics from 1-34 years of age, and are the sixth leading cause of death for Hispanics of all ages. Additionally, Latino children five to 12 years of age are 72 percent more likely to die in a traffic crash than non-Latino whites of the same age. 1

ü      Both the 1996 and 1998 National Occupant Protection Use Surveys (NOPUS) showed that the seat belt use rate among African Americans was lower than the rate for the general population.

ü      A recent medical study showed that Hispanic drivers have lower safety belt use rates than non-Hispanic whites, with correspondingly higher fatality rates in traffic crashes.[2]

ü      Another recent medical study examined motor vehicle fatality exposure rates and found that, although Hispanic and African American male teenagers travel fewer vehicle miles than their white counterparts, they are nearly twice as likely to die in a motor vehicle crash. This study also showed that African American children between the ages of 5 and 12 years of age face three times the risk of dying in a motor vehicle crash than white children in this same age group.

II. PRIMARY BELT LAWS INCREASE  USAGE AMONG MINORITIES.

Primary safety belt laws are effective in increasing safety belt use among African Americans and Hispanics which translates into lives saved and injuries prevented in their communities.

ü      A 1999 study by Meharry Medical College, a historically black medical institution, reported that 100 percent safety belt use among African Americans could save 1,300 lives and prevent 26,000 injuries each year.[4]

ü      When three states—Louisiana, California, and Georgia—upgraded their laws to primary enforcement statutes, minority groups thought their chances of getting a safety belt ticket would be higher than for whites. As a result, their recorded increases in safety belt use were disproportionately greater than the recorded increases for whites.

ü      Several studies have shown that safety belt use among African Americans and Hispanics is significantly higher in primary enforcement areas compared with that of secondary enforcement areas.

III. DIFFERENTIAL ENFORCEMENT

While differential enforcement (racial profiling) is often cited as a reason to oppose primary belt laws, there has been no clear evidence of enforcement bias in states that have moved from secondary to primary enforcement. In fact, increases in citations issued for seatbelt violations were usually proportionately greater among whites than minorities.

ü      A recent study conducted by the University of Michigan’s Transportation Research Institute found that implementation of primary enforcement did not lead to an increase in citation over-representation and has not contributed to increased harassment, perceptions notwithstanding.

ü      Another study found that in cities with primary belt enforcement there has been no evidence of enforcement bias against African Americans--increases in citations generally have been greater among Whites than African Americans once primary enforcement is implemented.

ü      Research conducted in Louisiana and Georgia showed no changes in ticketing patterns by race that would suggest minority groups received a greater proportion of tickets as a result of primary laws being enacted and enforced. Independent of race or ethnicity, younger drivers, males, and those who drove more than 15,000 miles a year, received the greatest number of tickets. 4 5

ü      Similar findings also occurred when Maryland, Oklahoma, and the District of Columbia upgraded their laws from secondary to primary enforcement. After the upgrades, citation data showed that there was either no difference in non-white versus white ticketing, comparing secondary to primary enforcement, or a greater increase in ticketing went to whites following the change to a primary enforcement law.

While harassment is a very real concern, any law has potential for discriminatory enforcement.

ü      An officer in Massachusetts can stop a driver for any one of more than 300 traffic violations that are primary enforcement civil infractions. The Massachusetts’ seat belt law is the only traffic violation that is considered “secondary enforcement” whereby an officer must pull you over for another traffic violation first, before enforcing the seat belt law. 

IV. Minorities and Minority Organizations Show Strong Support For Safety Belt Laws 

Contrary to what you may think, minorities support strong safety belt laws.

ü      In a recent national survey, 94 percent of African Americans and 92 percent of Hispanics expressed support for laws requiring front seat passengers to wear safety belts. Additionally 68 percent of African Americans and 73 percent of Hispanics expressed support for primary safety belt laws.

ü      The National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE), the Nation’s leading organization of minority law enforcement officials, examined this issue extensively during 2000 and 2001. As a result, NOBLE has voiced support for law enforcement training, educational outreach to the African American community, and passage of primary safety belt laws to increase safety belt use among African Americans.

ü      According to a study conducted by the National Black Caucus of State Legislators and the Air Bag & Seat Belt Safety Campaign, African Americans who live in the states with a primary seat belt law overwhelmingly favor the law by more than a 3-to-1 margin. Less than one-half of one percent of African Americans report race-related harassment problems as a result of their state's seat belt law.State Legislators, National Urban League and the Children's Defense Fund support strong laws that increase seat belt use and include safeguards for uniform enforcement.

ü      The Congressional Black Caucus has stated that increasing safety belt use among African Americans is an "urgent national health priority." The National Black Caucus of State Legislators and the National Conference of Black Mayors have also expressed support for strong laws that increase safety belt use and include safeguards for uniform enforcement

ü      ASPIRA, a national organization dedicated to the education and leadership development of Hispanic youth, also has expressed its support for primary safety belt legislation. ASPIRA passed a resolution supporting primary enforcement of State safety belt and child safety seat use laws and efforts to promote compliance with such laws.

African American and Hispanic organizations that support primary belt laws: 

ü      ASPIRA Association, Inc. 

ü      Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association 

ü      Latino Council on Alcohol and Tobacco 

ü      National Association of Hispanic Nurses 

ü      National Hispanic Medical Association 

ü      National Council of La Raza 

ü      National Latino Children’s Institute

ü      Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc.

ü      Black Congress on Health, Law & Economics

ü      Black Entertainment Television (BET)

ü      Congress of National Black Churches

ü      Edward Davis Education Foundation

ü      Jack and Jill of America

ü      Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity

ü      Meharry Medical College

ü      National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education

ü      National Black Alcoholism and Addictions Council, Inc.

ü      National Black Caucus of State Legislators

ü      National Black Nurses Association

ü      National Conference of Black Mayors

ü      National Council of Negro Women

ü      National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives

ü      National Urban League

ü      Sigma Gamma Rho Sorority

As of July 2004, 21 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have primary safety belt laws. Below is the list with current seat belt use rates vs. rate when the state passed primary belt.

Year Passed                Use Rate Year Passed                                         2004 Rate

Alabama                    1999                                                    58%                                                                        80%

California                   1993                                         high 60's low 70's                                                            90.4%

Connecticut              1986                                                    11.5%                                                                     82.9%

Delaware                    2003                                                    75%                                                                        82.3%

D.C                             1997                                                    78%                                                                        87%

Georgia                      1996                                                    57.8%                                                                     86.7%

Hawaii                        1985                                    No survey but high 60's low 70's                                       95.1%

Illinois                        2003                                                    76.2%                                                                     83%

Indiana                      1998                                                    61.8%                                                                     83.4%

Iowa                           1986                                                    43%                                                                        86.4%

Louisiana                   1995                                                    50%                                                                        75%

Maryland                   1997                                                    70%                                                                        89%

Michigan                  2000                                                    70.1%                                                                     90.5%

New Jersey                1999                                                    63.3%                                                                     82%

New Mexico             1986                                                    27%                                                                        89.7%

New York                   1984                                                    16%                                                                        85%

North Carolina          1985                                                    25.5%                                                                     86.1%

Oklahoma                  1997                                                    47.4%                                                                     80.3%

Oregon                       1990                                                    50%                                                                        92.6%

Tennessee                 2004                                                                                                                                    72%

Texas                         1985                                                    9.6%                                                                       83.2%

Washington             2002                                                    83%                                                                        94.2%

Puerto Rico               1975                                                    5%                                                                          90.1%.