2006 safety belt usage survey in Kentucky.

Agent, Kenneth R.; Green, Eric R. · 2006 · ROSA P / University of Kentucky Transportation Center

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (full text — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This report presents the findings of the 2006 safety belt and child safety seat usage survey conducted in Kentucky by the University of Kentucky Transportation Center in cooperation with the Kentucky State Police. The study aimed to establish statewide usage rates to evaluate the impact of legislative changes, specifically the transition from a secondary enforcement law (enacted in 1994) to a primary enforcement law (enacted in 2006). The research also sought to document trends in restraint usage following various public information campaigns and to assess compliance among specific demographics, including children and motorcyclists. Data were collected between June and August 2006 at 200 randomly selected sites across the state. The site selection methodology followed National Highway Traffic Safety Administration guidelines, stratifying locations by geographic region, roadway functional classification, and vehicle miles traveled. Observers recorded safety belt usage for drivers and front-seat passengers, as well as child restraint usage for children under four years of age in both front and rear seats. Data collection involved two-hour observation periods at intersections or interchanges, capturing a total sample of 115,294 front-seat occupants. The results were weighted by vehicle miles traveled to determine statewide estimates, with statistical analysis performed to calculate confidence intervals and relative errors. The 2006 statewide safety belt usage rate for all front-seat occupants was 67.2 percent, a slight increase from 66.7 percent in 2005. Driver usage was 67.7 percent, while front-seat passenger usage was 65.2 percent. Usage varied significantly by region, with the highest rate in the North (71.7 percent) and the lowest in the East (57.5 percent). It also varied by vehicle type, with sport utility vehicles and vans showing high usage (74.0 percent and 73.0 percent, respectively) and pickup trucks showing the lowest usage (52.6 percent). Child restraint usage for children under four remained high at 94.0 percent, with rear-seat usage significantly higher than front-seat usage. Additionally, motorcycle helmet usage was recorded at 60 percent, reflecting a decline since the repeal of the mandatory helmet law in 1998. The study concludes that while the 2006 usage rate represents the highest level since surveys began in 1982, the shift to primary enforcement alone did not yield a substantial immediate increase. The authors recommend that to maximize compliance, the primary enforcement law must be accompanied by active enforcement with fines and public education campaigns starting in January 2007. The data suggest that awareness of enforcement is critical for increasing usage, particularly in the eastern region of the state and among pickup truck occupants. The report also notes the low compliance with bicycle helmets and suggests reconsidering the mandatory motorcycle helmet law.

Key finding

The statewide safety belt usage rate for all front seat occupants was 67.2 percent in 2006, with significant variations observed by vehicle type and geographic region.

Methodology

survey

Sample size: 115294

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed. Discovered via bulk_ingest_rosap on 2026-05-23 (6 acquisition events logged).

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-10; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• seat belt use
• incidence prevalence
• child passenger safety

Information type

What kind of knowledge this paper contributes, grouped by family — independent of topic (what it is about) and method (how it was studied).

• Empirical Findings: observational prevalence