Skip to main content
PMC home page
HHS Author Manuscripts logoLink to HHS Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Sep 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Safety Res. 2019 May 2;70:13–17. doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2019.04.004

Nighttime seat belt use among front seat passengers: Does the driver’s belt use matter?

Kwaku F Boakye a,*, Ruth A Shults b, Jerry D Everett a
PMCID: PMC7185736  NIHMSID: NIHMS1566991  PMID: 31847988

Abstract

Introduction and Method:

We explored the relationship between nighttime seat belt use of right-front passengers and their drivers using observational data from 33,310 vehicles in east Tennessee during March 2015 – May 2017.

Results:

Overall, nighttime passenger seat belt use varied by 50 percentage points from 92% when drivers were belted to 42% when drivers were not belted, suggesting that part-time seat belt users can be heavily influenced by the seat belt status of their traveling companions. When stratified by vehicle type and sex, passenger seat belt use by driver seat belt status varied as much as 74 percentage points from 96% to 22%. Passenger seat belt use was typically lower when riding with unbelted same-sex drivers than when riding with unbelted drivers of the opposite sex.

Conclusions and Practical Applications:

This finding suggests that the role of peer influence in decision-making about seat belt use may differ depending on the sex of a vehicle driver and his or her passengers. Further research is warranted to explore this finding as well as other social and cultural influences that have not been fully examined in seat belt research.

Keywords: Seat belt, Nighttime, Driver, Right-front passenger, Test of proportions

1. Introduction

When properly fastened, seat belts are estimated to reduce fatal injuries to front seat car passengers by 45% and moderate-to-critical injuries by 50% (National Center for Statistics and Analysis, 2018a). In 2016, seat belt use in the United States (U.S.) was estimated to be 90% (Li & Pickrell, 2018). However, among fatally injured vehicle occupants with known restraint use in 2016, 41% were unrestrained in daytime crashes and 56% were unrestrained in nighttime crashes (National Center for Statistics and Analysis, 2018a).

Several studies have identified factors that likely contribute to lower nighttime seat belt use. Motorists may believe that they are less likely to be cited by law enforcement for not wearing a seat belt during nighttime hours (Kulanthayan, Law, Raha, et al., 2004). Moreover, the nighttime traveling population often differ significantly from daylight hours, with fewer high-use populations like parents with children and older adults but more of those who tend to engage in risk-taking behaviors like speeding, impaired driving, and non-use of seat belts (Kim & Kim, 2003; Kulanthayan et al., 2004). In light of the high prevalence of unbelted fatalities, particularly at night, enhanced strategies to increase seat belt use are needed.

Understanding the factors that impact seat belt use is critical for developing effective interventions. Existing literature indicates that several factors including socio-demographics (e.g., age, gender, race, education, economic status, etc.) (Begg & Langley, 2000; Lipovac, Tešić, Marić, et al., 2015; Şimşekoĝlu & Lajunen, 2008), interpersonal and social factors (e.g., presence and seat belt use of other passengers, seating position, seat belt laws and enforcement, etc.) (Chaudhary, Solomon, & Cosgrove, 2004; Nambisan & Vasudevan, 2007; Williams & Shabanova, 2002), and environmental factors (e.g., weather, traffic condition, time of day, rural/urban location, vehicle type, etc.) (Bhat, Beck, Bergen, et al., 2015; Boakye, Khattak, Everett, et al., 2018; Gkritza & Mannering, 2008) affect seat belt use.

With regard to interpersonal factors, studies have demonstrated that seat belt use varies strongly by passenger presence and age. For example, Williams and Shabanova (2002) found that seat belt use among teenage drivers was higher when parents or older adults accompany them but lower when accompanied by their peers. In the same study, seat belt use of teenage drivers was found to decrease with increasing number of passengers, whereas for older drivers, the usage increased with passenger presence. Other studies have also shown that front-seat passengers’ seat belt use is highly correlated with drivers’ seat belt use during daytime hours – when drivers wear seat belts, their accompanying passengers are more likely to use seat belts and when drivers do not wear seat belts, their passengers are more likely not to wear as well (Gkritza & Mannering, 2008; Han, 2017; Nambisan & Vasudevan, 2007). A separate analysis conducted recently on a portion of the data used in the current study showed that front-seat passengers traveling at night with unbelted drivers are at 14 times the odds of being unbelted compared to those riding with a belted driver (Boakye et al., 2018).

We previously examined factors associated with passengers’ seat belt non-use at night with the objective of demonstrating the application of Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) in addressing the clustering or correlation effects associated with roadside observations (Boakye et al., 2018). In this current study, we further examine the relationship between front-seat passengers’ seat belt use and that of their drivers at night. To the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to explore how front-seat passengers’ seat belt use at night varies among same-sex occupant pairs and opposite-sex pairs of passengers and their drivers.

Data were collected during observational surveys conducted in east Tennessee as part of a pilot intervention aimed at improving nighttime seat belt use (Boakye, 2017). Tennessee has a primary enforcement seat belt law that applies to all front seat occupants (Tennessee Code §55-9-603); law enforcement officers may stop a vehicle and issue a citation solely for nonuse of a seat belt. Tennessee’s average daytime seat belt use rate in 2016 was 89%, which was higher than in any previous year (Pickrell, 2017).

2. Methods

2.1. Study sample selection

A five-county region of east Tennessee was selected for this study because the area’s sociodemographic characteristics are similar to those of the entire state’s population, the mix of urban and rural settings, and the strength of existing partnerships between the Center for Transportation Research at the University of Tennessee and key community groups and stakeholders. We selected 36 roadway sites at which to observe nighttime front-seat seat belt use from the 59 sites used for annual daytime seat belt observational surveys in the five-county study area (Blount, Knox, Loudon, Roane, and Sevier) for the past decade (see Fig. 1).The annual surveys are conducted in every state in coordination with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (National Center for statistics and Analysis, 2018b). The sample design used for the annual daytime observations in each state follows the “The Uniform Criteria for State Observational Surveys of Seat Belt Use (23 CFR Part 1340).” For site selection, a multi-stage area probability sampling approach is utilized. In the first stage, 16 of the 95 Tennessee counties are selected to achieve a national desired level of accuracy in belt use estimation. The 16-county sample is chosen using a two-step procedure. First, the four largest counties, then, 12 additional counties are selected using “population weighting” and random number generation method. In the second stage, sampling of individual route segments (ranging in length from 0.5 to 5 miles) in each of the counties is performed. For each county, segments are randomly chosen with probability of selection proportional to the segment’s annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). The qualifying route segments from each of the survey counties are stratified into four groupings (Interstates/Freeways/Expressways; Other Principal Arterials; Minor Arterials; and Collectors) using Enhanced Tennessee Roadway Information Management System (ETRIMS) functional classification method. The number of segments chosen from each stratum is proportional to each county’s estimated annual VMT. This sampling design assures that the final sample is representative of the traffic mix in the county across the roadway functional types.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

Open in a new tab

Nighttime observation sites in five counties around the Knoxville area.

The feasibility of conducting night observations at each site was the primary factor considered in selecting sites. Six sites from each of the five counties and six additional sites from the central business district of Knoxville (in Knox County) were selected. The selected sites were either at the same location or at different spot but along the same route segment where daytime observations are made. Once selected, each of the 36 sites was randomly linked to one of six possible observation periods (8–9 pm, 9–10 pm, 10–11 pm, 11 pm–12 am; 12–1 am; 1–2 am) for all days of the week. Therefore, the sampling design was stratified by both location (per county) and time period for observations.

2.2. Data collection

The Center for Transportation Research at The University of Tennessee conducted a series of 17 nighttime seat belt observational survey waves (unevenly spaced) over a 27-month period during March 2015–May 2017. The data collection techniques followed the nighttime observation guidelines developed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NTHSA) (Chaudhary, Leaf, Preusser, et al., 2010). Data were collected at the 36 selected sites in five counties of east Tennessee (see Fig. 1). This five-county region comprised the study area for the pilot intervention. Surveys were conducted before and after periodic seat belt use campaign waves (i.e., saturation patrols, check points and Click-It-Or-Ticket enforcement campaigns combined with paid or earned media and public outreach programs) (Boakye, 2017).

At each survey site, observations lasted for one to two hours depending on the level of traffic volume. Illumination was enhanced using a portable, low-beam lighting fixture where needed. Data were typically collected by two trained Center for Transportation Research staff members, one making seat belt observations and the other recording the results as stated by the observer. The data collected included shoulder belt use of the driver and right-front seat passenger (yes, no, or unsure), sex of both occupants (male or female), and type of vehicle (passenger car, sport-utility vehicle (SUV), pickup truck, or minivan). Seat belt use was recorded as “unsure” in < 3% of the entire data set.

2.3. Analysis

Data from all 36 survey sites were combined for analysis. Of the 101,328 vehicles observed during the entire study period, 33% (33,310) had both a driver and right-front seat passenger. Seat belt use proportions were separately calculated for passengers and drivers. Although overall passenger seat belt use varied from 83% in 2015 to 87% in 2016 and 86% in 2017, the associations between passenger seat belt use and the other study factors (i.e., occupants’ sex, driver seat belt status, vehicle type) remained stable over the 27-month study period. Therefore, we combined the data from all three years for analysis.

Ignoring the study’s two-stage area probability sample design in the analysis could bias findings related to seat belt use (Bell, Ene, Smiley, Ene, et al., 2014; Bell, Ene, Smiley, & Schoeneberger, 2013). To test this possibility, we constructed two logistic models; a single level model and a two-level multivariate model with front-seat passengers at level 1 and observation sites at level 2. Although the results indicated variation in passenger seat belt use across sites, the magnitude, direction and significance level of the explanatory variables of interest in both the single and the two-level models remained essentially unchanged as shown in Table 1. Therefore, ignoring the sampling design, we conducted a descriptive, bivariate analysis using Z-tests of proportions to explore in depth how nighttime passenger seat belt use varied by each of the study factors. Statistical significance was set at P-value <.05.

Table 1.

Comparison of single-level and multi-level (two-level) models, nighttime passenger seat belt use, East Tennessee, March 2015–May 2017.

Parameters Categories Single-level model Two-level model*
Estimate Standard Error P-value Estimate Standard Error P-value
Fixed parameters
Intercept 0.456 0.008 <0.001 0.455 0.008 <0.001
Passenger sex Male −0.081 0.004 <0.001 −0.080 0.004 <0.001
Female - - - - - -
Driver sex Male 0.014 0.004 <0.001 0.014 0.004 <0.001
Female - - - - - -
Driver belt use Belted 0.493 0.005 <0.001 0.491 0.005 <0.001
Unbelted - - - - - -
Vehicle type Car −0.004 0.006 0.4746 −0.003 0.006 0.571
Pickup truck −0.038 0.007 <0.001 −0.038 0.007 <0.001
SUV 0.006 0.006 0.327 0.006 0.006 0.345
Minivan - - - - - -
Random parameter
Level 2 variance NA NA NA 0.0002 0.0001 0.007
Level 1 variance 0.0912 0.0007 <0.0001 0.0911 0.0007 <0.0001
Open in a new tab

NA = not applicable (−) = referenced category.

*

PROC MIXED model estimated using maximum likelihood (ML), Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom and covariance structure type = variance component (VC). Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) = 0.00674, indicating that the sites account for less than 1% of the total variation in passenger seat belt use.

3. Results

Overall, nighttime passenger seat belt use averaged 86% but varied from 92% when drivers were belted to 42% when drivers were not belted (Table 2). Seat belt use among male passengers averaged 10 percentage points lower than use among female passengers (79% vs. 89%). Comparing seat belt use by vehicle type, pickup truck passengers averaged about 10 percentage points lower than passengers in other vehicle types (77% vs. 87% or 88%).

Table 2.

Nighttime passenger seat belt use, East Tennessee, March 2015–May 2017.

Variable Category No. passengers Passenger seat belt use (%Yes) Chi-square test P-value
Year 2015 11,438 83 < 0.001
2016 14,120 87
2017 7752 86
Driver seat belt use Yes 28,822 92 < 0.001
No 4488 42
Passenger sex Male 11,775 79 < 0.001
Female 21,535 89
Vehicle type Car 14,650 87 < 0.001
Pickup 5459 77
SUV 10,073 88
Van 3128 87
Driver sex Male 22,172 86 0.700
Female 11,138 86
Open in a new tab

3.1. Seat belt use of right-front seat passengers based on drivers’ seat belt use

Table 3 presents passenger seat belt use under three conditions: passenger belt use without regard to driver use (total); passenger belt use when their driver was belted; and passenger belt use when their driver was not belted. Compared to passenger belt use without regard to driver belt use, passenger belt use was significantly higher when their driver was belted and significantly lower when their driver was not belted. These results were consistent across all the vehicle types regardless of the sex of the drivers and passengers.

Table 3.

Nighttime passenger seat belt use by driver seat belt use, East Tennessee, March 2015–May 2017.

Driver sex Vehicle type Passenger sex Passenger seat belt use
Total With belted driver With unbelted driver
N % SB N % SB N % SB
Male Car Male 2404 81 2043 89 361 33
Female 6643 90 5907 94 736 56
Pickup Male 1750 65 1186 86 564 22
Female 3094 83 2404 94 690 46
SUV Male 1350 82 1143 91 207 31
Female 5008 91 4399 95 609 56
Van Male 431 80 350 91 81 33
Female 1492 90 1294 96 198 57
All Male 5935 76 4722 89 1213 27
Female 16,237 89 14,004 95 2233 53
Female Car Male 2928 83 2656 88 272 35
Female 2675 90 2455 94 220 40
Pickup Male 398 73 325 83 73 29
Female 217 82 180 94 37 22
SUV Male 1876 83 1697 89 179 26
Female 1839 91 1691 96 148 43
Van Male 638 82 570 86 68 49
Female 567 88 522 91 45 49
All Male 5840 82 5248 88 592 33
Female 5298 90 4848 94 450 40
All Car Male 5332 82 4699 88 633 34
Female 9318 90 8362 94 956 52
Pickup Male 2148 67 1511 86 637 22
Female 3311 83 2584 94 727 45
SUV Male 3226 83 2840 90 386 28
Female 6847 91 6090 96 757 54
Van Male 1069 81 920 88 149 40
Female 2059 90 1816 94 243 55
All Male 11,775 79 9970 88 1805 29
Female 21,535 89 18,852 95 2683 51
Open in a new tab

N = total number of passengers observed.

% SB = percent of passengers observed wearing seat belts.

Comparing seat belt use by sex and type of vehicle, belt use among male passengers ranged from a low of 22% when riding in pickup trucks with unbelted male drivers to a high of 91% when riding in vans or SUVs with male belted drivers. Seat belt use for female passengers ranged from 22% when riding in pickup trucks with unbelted female drivers to 96% when riding in vans with belted male drivers or riding in SUVs with belted female drivers.

Every Z-test for difference in proportions comparing passenger seat belt use without regard to driver seat belt (total) to passenger seat belt use with regard to driver seat (either “with belted driver” or “with unbelted driver”) was statistically significant at P-value <.05.

Comparing same-sex occupant pairs with opposite-sex pairs, when passengers and drivers were of the same sex and the driver was unbelted, passenger seat belt use was almost always lower than when the occupants were of opposite sex and the driver was unbelted. For example, for all types of vehicles combined, male passenger belt use was 27% when riding with unbelted male drivers and 33% when riding with unbelted female drivers. Similarly, female passenger belt use was 40% when riding with unbelted female drivers and 53% when riding with unbelted male drivers.

3.2. Study limitations

The seat belt use data were collected as part of a pilot intervention that had varying levels of intensity over time and location, which may have impacted seat belt use. Although seat belt use varies by age, we did not attempt to estimate occupants’ age. The study was limited to front seat occupants. Also, data were collected until 2 a.m.; seat belt use rates after 2 a.m. might have been different. Finally, east Tennessee was selected for this study in part because the region’s mix of roadway types and population demographics are similar to those of the entire state. Therefore, the study’s findings may not be generalizable to other states or jurisdictions.

4. Discussion

Our findings indicate that even in a state with a primary enforcement law and relatively high seat belt use, many motorists must be part-time belt users. Overall, nighttime passenger seat belt use varied by 50 percentage points from 92% when drivers were belted to 42% when drivers were unbelted. This finding suggests that part-time seat belt users might be heavily influenced by the seat belt status of their traveling companions. Passenger seat belt use was typically lower when riding with unbelted same-sex drivers (e.g., female passenger and female driver) than when riding with unbelted drivers of the opposite sex. This finding suggests that the role of peer influence in decision-making about seat belt use may differ depending on the sex of a vehicle driver and his or her passengers. Further research is warranted to explore this finding as well as other social and cultural influences that are not traditionally examined in seat belt research (Jans, Aremia, Killmer, et al., 2015). Our findings also confirm results from existing seat belt use literature (Bhat et al., 2015; Chaudhary & Preusser, 2006; Şimşekoğlu & Lajunen, 2008a), including lower belt use among males and occupants of pickup trucks.

Converting part-time seat belt users to full-time users could greatly reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries. Behavioral theory research offers insights for designing persuasive messaging that might prove beneficial with part-time seat belt users (Jans et al., 2015; Lewis, Watson, White, et al., 2013; Lewis, White, Ho, et al., 2017; Şimşekoğlu & Lajunen, 2008b; Stasson & Fishbein, 1990). For example, intention to wear a seat belt has been found to be related to a person’s beliefs about whether significant others think he/she should buckle up (i.e., subjective norms) and issues of comfort and convenience. These findings led to recommendations to correct false perceptions of subjective norms and emphasize advantages of seat belt use instead of the possible negative outcomes of not buckling up (Jans et al., 2015; Şimşekoğlu & Lajunen, 2008b; Stasson & Fishbein, 1990). Similarly, research into persuasive messaging aimed at reducing speeding among young males recommends using positive emotional appeals focusing on shared responsibility and prioritizing the safety of significant others (Lewis et al., 2013; Lewis et al., 2017). Integrating such theory-based, persuasive messaging into multifaceted interventions that specifically target part-time seat belt users could help advance the science of occupant safety.

Acknowledgements

This paper is supported in part by Cooperative Agreement Number, 1 U01CE002503-01, funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). We also thank the Tennessee Highway Safety Office for partially funding the efforts of this research.

The authors express their sincere gratitude to Professor Shashi Nambisan for his insights and expertise that greatly contributed to this research. We are extremely grateful to students and staff at the University of Tennessee in conducting the nighttime seat belt surveys. We thank the five-county police departments for their random patrols to check on observers’ safety during the study.

References

  1. Begg DJ, & Langley JD (2000). Seat-belt use and related behaviors among young adults. Journal of Safety Research, 31(4), 211–220. 10.1016/S0022-4375(00)00038-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bell BA, Smiley W, Ene M, & Blue GL (2014). An intermediate primer to estimating linear multilevel models using SAS® PROC MIXED. SAS Global Forum Proceedings, 1869, 1–19 (August 3, 2018) http://support.sas.com/resources/papers/proceedings14/1869-2014.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bell BA, Ene M, Smiley W, & Schoeneberger JA (2013). A multilevel model primer using SAS PROC MIXED. SAS Global Forum Proceedings, 433, 1–9 (Accessed August 3, 2018) https://support.sas.com/resources/papers/proceedings13/433-2013.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bhat G, Beck L, Bergen G, et al. (2015). Predictors of rear seat belt use among U.S. adults, 2012. Journal of Safety Research, 53, 103–106. 10.1016/j.jsr.2015.03.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Boakye KF (2017). Evaluation of Increased Targeted Enforcement and Community-based Outreach and Education Programs to Increase Nighttime Seatbelt Use in East Tennessee. PhD dissertation University of Tennessee. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/4681 Accessed July 6, 2018.
  6. Boakye KF, Khattak A, Everett J, et al. (2018). Correlates of front-seat passengers’ non-use of seatbelts at night. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 10.1016/j.aap.2018.04.006. [DOI] [PubMed]
  7. Chaudhary NK, Leaf W, Preusser D, et al. (2010). Guidelines to Observe and Estimate Statewide Seat Belt Use at Night. Preusser Research Group, Inc. U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Behavioral Safety Research. [Google Scholar]
  8. Chaudhary NK, & Preusser DF (2006). Connecticut nighttime safety belt use. Journal of Safety Research, 37(4), 353–358. 10.1016/j.jsr.2006.05.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Chaudhary NK, Solomon MG, & Cosgrove LA (2004). The relationship between perceived risk of being ticketed and self-reported seat belt use. Journal of Safety Research, 35(4), 383–390. 10.1016/j.jsr.2004.03.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Gkritza K, & Mannering FL (2008). Mixed logit analysis of safety-belt use in single- and multi-occupant vehicles. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 40(2), 443–451. 10.1016/j.aap.2007.07.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Han GM (2017). Non-seatbelt use and associated factors among passengers. International Journal of Injury Control Safety Promotion, 24(2), 251–255. 10.1080/17457300.2016.1170042. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Jans M, Aremia M, Killmer B, et al. (2015). Potential mechanisms underlying the decision to use a seat belt: A literature review. The University of Michigan, Transportation Research Institute. [Google Scholar]
  13. Kim S, & Kim K (2003). Personal, temporal and spatial characteristics of seriously injured crash-involved seat belt non-users in Hawaii. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 35(1), 121–130. 10.1016/S0001-4575(01)00097-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Kulanthayan S, Law TH, Raha AR, et al. (2004). Seat belt use among car users in Malaysia. International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences Research, 28(1), 19–25. 10.1016/S0386-1112(14)60088-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Lewis I, Watson B, White KM, et al. (2013). The beliefs which influence young males to speed and strategies to slow them down: Informing the content of antispeeding messages. Psychology & Marketing, 30(9), 826–841. 10.1002/mar.20648. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Lewis I, White K, Ho B, et al. (2017). Insights into targeting young male drivers with anti-speeding advertising: An application of the step approach to message design and testing (SatMDT). Accident Analysis & Prevention, 103, 129–142. 10.1016/j.aap.2017.04.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Li R, & Pickrell TM (2018). Seat belt use in 2017—Overall results, Traffic Safety Facts Research Note, Report No. DOT HS 812 Vol. 465Washington, D.C: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. [Google Scholar]
  18. Lipovac K, Tešić M, Marić B, et al. (2015). Self-reported and observed seat belt use – A case study: Bosnia and Herzegovina. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 84, 74–82. 10.1016/j.aap.2015.08.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Nambisan SS, & Vasudevan V (2007). Is seat belt usage by front seat passengers related to seat belt usage by their drivers? Journal of Safety Research, 38(5), 545–555. 10.1016/j.jsr.2007.06.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. National Center for Statistics and Analysis (2018a). Occupant protection in passenger vehicles: 2016 data, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic Safety Facts, Report No. DOT HS 812 494 Washington, DC. [Google Scholar]
  21. National Center for statistics and Analysis (2018b). Seat Belt Use in 2017—Use Rates in the States and Territories Traffic Safety Facts Crash Stats. Report No. DOT HS 812 546 Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration June. [Google Scholar]
  22. Pickrell TM (2017). Seat belt use in 2016—Use rates in the States and Territories Traffic Safety Facts Crash Stats. Report No. DOT HS 812 Vol. 417Washington, D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. [Google Scholar]
  23. Şimşekoĝlu Ö, & Lajunen T (2008). Environmental and psychosocial factors affecting seat belt use among Turkish front-seat occupants in Ankara: Two observation studies. Traffic Injury Prevention, 9(3), 264–267. 10.1080/15389580801966508. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Şimşekoğlu Ö, & Lajunen T (2008a). Why Turks do not use seat belts? An interview study. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 40(2), 470–478. 10.1016/j.aap.2007.08.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Şimşekoğlu Ö, & Lajunen T (2008b). Social psychology of seat belt use: A comparison of theory of planned behavior and health belief model. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 11(3), 181–191. 10.1016/j.trf.2007.10.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Stasson M, & Fishbein M (1990). The relation between perceived risk and preventive action: A within-subject analysis of perceived driving risk and intentions to wear seatbelts. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20(19), 1541–1557. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1990.tb01492.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Williams AF, & Shabanova VI (2002). Situational factors in seat belt use by teenage drivers and passengers. Traffic Injury Prevention, 3(3), 201–204. 10.1080/15389580213650. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES