Summary
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention spearheaded the evaluation of the seat belt law to ensure that the prevalence of road accident cases is under control. The evaluation objectives and the desired outcomes are to see that motor vehicle safety is achieved by the end of the day which will be among the greatest achievement of the public health . CDC considered safety belts as an effective measure to reduce the severity of injuries and the number of fatalities (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2017).
Evaluation Goals
The goals or desired outcomes of the seat belt law are to prevent people from unnecessary deaths as well as injuries. CDC recommended the primary enforcement seat belt laws basing on the program effectiveness to avert fatal car crashes. Generally, the seat belt law is classified as either “primary” or “secondary” enforcement laws. Essentially, Primary enforcement laws permit law enforcers to stop drivers or any passengers to issue them with tickets because they have not fastened their seat belts. On the contrary, the Secondary enforcement laws apply when the police issue drivers tickets for safety belt offense only when they have been stopped for different offenses. This law restricts the capacity to implement safety belt regulation fully. According to ( Lv, Lord, Zhang & Chen, 2015) in the states which have applied this mandatory law, the seat belt use is 9% higher than 8 % rate of states with the secondary seat belt law.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Furthermore, CDC proposes strict enforcement of the existing laws to reinforce the Seat Belt Law. When the existing laws are emphasized on it will better support the law. It can be done by raising the of patrol officers who constantly check the drivers on the usage of the safety Belts. The road safety campaign is further supported by some media hype drive, such as the rewarding “Click It or Ticket” initiatives. ( Harper & Strumpf, 2015) revealed that better enforcement policies increase safety belt usage with an average of 16 percent mark. CDC also proposes the Increase in penalty for safety belt violation. Effectively enforced seat belt laws operate efficiently as most individuals would rather fasten their safety belt rather than probably having to pay fines. They propose that people should be fined heavily so that they will comply with the motor vehicle safety laws. However, they observed that in various states, the penalty for violation of safety belt laws are so insignificant that it does not prompt people to put on their safety belt. They further recommend that fines should be increased from $5-$100, therefore it can roughly boost safety belt usage with more than 10% mark. CDC considers an increase in penalty charges for violation of safety belt law as a motivational factor for drivers (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2017) .
Theoretical Perspective of the Seat Belt Law
The assessment of the effectiveness of Primary seat belt laws highlights whether the increase of seat belt usage reduces road carnage overall. The Peltzman a theory of “compensating behavior” demonstrates the connection of the seat belt law is goal/outcome ( Lv, Lord, Zhang & Chen, 2015) . In line with the theory, increased use of Primary seat belt law will generally restrain traffic fatalities. Fastening seat belts makes drivers believe that they are more protected, thus drive carelessly, causing more traffic fatalities. Looking at the one end, the seat belts with reduces injuries in the drivers’ part behind the wheel, however, in the other end fatalities of pedestrians and cyclists are likely to rise.
The Peltzman’s offsetting seat belt beneficial effects is just on the drivers’ part. To assess Peltzman’s compensating behavior theory, it is indispensable that we evaluate the effects of increasing usage of driving behavior. The assumption that this theory makes is that fatal injury is influenced in the following mode: The effect that directly functions to diminish the likelihood that a driver putting on a safety belt will be perish when a car crash happens ( Lv, Lord, Zhang & Chen, 2015) . The outcome that indirectly happens to raise the accidents rates by encouraging careless few drivers who put on safety belts. Whereas car occupants may be the focus on these two outcomes, which set out in different paths, road users without cars can just focus on the unforeseen effects. Therefore, the Peltzman’s theory foresees categorical relationship connecting safety belt use rate alongside the casualties amongst the road users without cars. As a result, directing the consequence of safety belt use on other road user on foot, or cycling offers a clear assessment of this theory. The extensive experimental study on the subject achieved varied results pertaining to the compensating behavior theory. In the event of fatalities, there is the occupant and the non-occupant, unfortunately, the Peltzman mandatory seat belt laws effects on non-occupants have not been granted as much as a necessary consideration as they are regularly protected by the safety seat belts functions (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2017).
To this edge, primary safety belt laws could possibly elevate an impartiality crisis amongst road users as it protects occupants which increase the likelihood of non-occupants to get involved in a traffic mishap, particularly if the occupant possesses higher income and social class compared to that of non-occupants. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention applied the theory to guide them in their evaluation of the usage of the seat belt.
Research Methods
The CDC used the principal research method of Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) analysis to obtain information about the self-reported seat belt usage prevalence amongst the driving population in the United States ( Harper & Strumpf, 2015) . The information captured is on the basis of the state ranks telephone assessment. The survey sought to find out: “How regularly do individuals fasten safety belts when driving or traveling?” There are five likely responses were: Seldom, Sometimes, Always, Almost always, or never ride or drive in a car . A systematic self-reported belt use rates comparison in 32 states as of July 2012 established that there was a higher compliance of primary seat belt laws (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2017) .
As indicated by the CDC report in the United States 2002-2010 data of self-reported seat belt usage, in 2002 it was marked by 80% whereas in 2010 an increase of 87% which is quite commendable. During 2010, 11 out of the 32 states observing the mandatory seat belt laws along with the Columbia District attained seat belt usage of 90% or more. No any states with secondary laws hit on the 90% mark ( Lv, Lord, Zhang & Chen, 2015). In general, in 2010 the seat belt usage was 89%, 9% elevated in states with mandatory regulations while states having secondary enforcement had 80%. In the survey, CDC tried to establish incidences of always fastening safety belts belt by various states in America, after stratifying data according to the type of state seatbelt law applied that is the Mandatory or secondary law enforcement. There were no intended consequences which arose during the study as aimed to find out the constant use of seat belt, which increase in a matter of time. Nevertheless, the rise the usage of the safety belt is what the study anticipated (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2017).
Conclusion
Usage of safety belt continues rising in states with mandatory enforcement seat belt laws according to the most recent studies publicized by CDC’s Division of Unintentional Injury Prevention. The CDC review on the road fatalities makes it possible for us to categorize and determine the various aspects of the mandatory safety belt regulations and their usefulness in enhancing the use of safety belt. Particularly, using primary law can significantly increase its success. The CDC estimation mark on the road to the nationwide adoption rate is projected to rise from 68% to 77% and 500 more lives will not be lost yearly if the states subscribing to secondary law promptly moves to primary enforcement. Therefore, recently the federal government endorsed this program to push the states to move to primary law. The CDC results opened a foundation for the primary law policy promoting the usage of safety belt regulation. The findings also will be used to provide a precise as well as coherent evaluation of the possible advantages of the law, and also it will provide several changes in the planning of the implementation which is viable for motor vehicle safety.
Evaluation Concepts
The Goals or desired outcome approach applies in the case of seat belt law. By goals, it means having a specific focus or target to attain using the specific objectives. There will be no outcome without goals, as the desired outcomes have specific and measurable elements of policy’s goals and objectives. The measurable aspects should be determined during the evaluation of the seat belt law. In the evaluation of the policy goals it will enable one focus on the specific way of achieving the set objectives of the seat belt policy. In the theoretical perspectives, it enables one to understand the approach that will take to reach the desired outcomes. In the method section, it takes us to another milestone which unfolds the effects, impacts of choosing a certain course during the implementation of the seat belt laws. This section will further disclose what the policy intended to unmask, the results which it would achieve after the adoption of seat belt laws. Lastly, in it gives us the understanding of the adoption of seat belt law and helps us to know why the prescribers of the policy deemed useful.
References
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. ( 2017). CDC 24/7: Saving Lives, Protecting People . National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Division of Unintentional Injury Prevention. Retrieved from
https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/seatbelts/facts.html
Lv, J., Lord, D., Zhang, Y., & Chen, Z. (2015). Investigating Peltzman effects in adopting mandatory seat belt laws in the US: Evidence from non-occupant fatalities. Transport Policy , 44 , 58-64. Retrieved from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3654/999771c0a8b4d7d0a16debf0903d48c20b9c.pdf
Sunshine, J., Dwyer-Lindgren, L., Chen, A., & Mokdad, A. H. (2017). Seat-belt use in US counties: limited progress toward Healthy People 2020 objectives. Health Affairs , 36 (4), 636-639.
