Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 4121 Wilson Boulevard, 6th floor Arlington, VA 22203, United States.
Westat, Inc., 1600 Research Blvd, Rockville, MD 20850, United States.
J Safety Res. 2019 Dec;71:13-24. doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2019.09.005. Epub 2019 Nov 12.
Vehicle technologies that increase seat belt use can save thousands of lives each year. Kidd, Singer, Huey, and Kerfoot (2018) found that a gearshift interlock was more effective for increasing seat belt use than an intermittent audible reminder, but interlocks may not be more effective than persistent audible reminders lasting at least 90 seconds.
Forty-nine part-time belt users with a recent seat belt citation who self-reported not always using a seat belt drove two vehicles for 1 week each. Thirty-three drove a Chevrolet with an intermittent audible reminder followed by either a BMW with a persistent 90-second audible reminder (n = 17) or a Subaru with an incessant audible reminder (n = 16). The other 16 participants experienced the BMW persistent reminder followed by an interlock that limited speed to 15 mph during unbelted driving. These data were combined with data from 32 part-time belt users in Kidd et al. (2018) who experienced the intermittent reminder for 2 weeks or the intermittent reminder for 1 week and a gearshift interlock the next.
Relative to the intermittent reminder, seat belt use was significantly increased an estimated 30% by the BMW persistent reminder, 34% by the Subaru incessant reminder, and 33% by the speed-limiting interlock. Belt use was increased an estimated 16% by the gearshift interlock, but this change was not significant. More participants circumvented the speed-limiting interlock to drive unbelted than the audible reminders. Responses to a poststudy survey indicated that interlocks were less acceptable than reminders.
Audible reminders lasting at least 90 seconds and a speed-limiting interlock were more effective for increasing seat belt use than an intermittent audible reminder, but reminders were found more acceptable. Practical applications: Strengthening existing U.S. safety standards to require audible reminders lasting at least 90 seconds for front-row occupants could save up to 1,489 lives annually.
提高安全带使用率的车辆技术每年可挽救数千人的生命。Kidd、Singer、Huey 和 Kerfoot(2018 年)发现,换挡锁止器在提高安全带使用率方面比间歇性听觉提醒更有效,但锁止器的效果可能不如持续至少 90 秒的持续听觉提醒。
49 名兼职安全带使用者最近因未系安全带而收到罚单,但他们报告说并非总是使用安全带,每人驾驶两种车辆一周。其中 33 人驾驶雪佛兰,配备间歇性听觉提醒,然后驾驶宝马,宝马配备持续 90 秒的听觉提醒(n=17)或斯巴鲁,斯巴鲁配备持续听觉提醒(n=16)。其余 16 名参与者体验宝马持续提醒,然后在未系安全带时,车速限制在 15 英里/小时的换挡锁止器。这些数据与 Kidd 等人(2018 年)的 32 名兼职安全带使用者的数据相结合,这些参与者体验了 2 周的间歇性提醒或 1 周的间歇性提醒和下一个换挡锁止器。
与间歇性提醒相比,宝马持续提醒使安全带使用率提高了约 30%,斯巴鲁持续提醒提高了 34%,换挡锁止器提高了 33%。换挡锁止器使安全带使用率提高了约 16%,但这一变化并不显著。更多的参与者规避了限速锁止器,以不系安全带的方式驾驶。对研究后调查的回应表明,锁止器的可接受性低于提醒。
持续至少 90 秒的听觉提醒和限速锁止器比间歇性听觉提醒更能提高安全带使用率,但提醒更容易被接受。实际应用:加强美国现有的安全标准,要求前排乘客使用持续至少 90 秒的听觉提醒,每年可挽救多达 1489 条生命。