Gender and Age-Related Differences for Seat Belt Usage

Nehir E. Kurşun¹ and Fatih M. Yaşar²

¹Department of Fashion Design & Department of Psychology, Izmir University of Economics

²Department of Media and Communication, Izmir University of Economics

Abstract

The study of examined that gender and age-related differences in seat-belt usage or not usage at different travelling conditions. Moreover, seat belt usage or not usage was related with license year, active year on the traffic, daily time at traffic and place is examined. Firstly observed was done and after that face-to-face interviewing was made with 150 interviewees, who were different gender and at different age. Reported seat belt usage reasons were “safety”, “inexperienced”, “avoiding punishment”, and “previous crash experiences”. Not using seat belt reasons were reported “situational conditions”, “being at traffic continuously”, “discomfort” and “over trust to the driver”. “Safety” was the most mentioned reason for using seat belt and “being at traffic continuously” was the most common reason to not using a seat belt. Results showed that gender differences for seat belt usage, women used the seat belt more than men and being female and being older were effected the seat belt usage rate. Additionally, age-related differences for seat belt usage, results showed that young people, adults and older people all of them used seat belt in general.

1. Introduction

International researches showed that seat belt usage has an important affect to protect people and reducing the rate of injuring and fatality in traffic crashes. (Elvik&Vaa, 2004; Evans, 1986). Moreover, seat belt usage was not only reducing the rate, it provide to cut severe injuring. In spite of importance of seat belt usage, according to T.C. Emniyet Genel Müdürlüğü seat belt usage rate was very low especially in city roads and main traffic safety problem was that low seat belt usage in Turkey where traffic crashes was very high wit severe injuring and fatalities. Seat belt usage research was done with observation and interviewing with surveys.

In the presented research, seat belt usage or not usage reasons were correlated with gender and age- related differences. Additionally, the seat belt usage or not usage research was done at different places and different times according to intensity of traffic conditions.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

In this study, questionnaire was administered 150 drivers and aim was learning how to use seat belts. Questionnaires administered to 75 males and 75 females. The survey consists of 5 questions. age range, the dates get driver's license, traffic active hours to gather the information taking into account the usefulness of seat belts.

The research was done in Selway and Kipa. One of the places is out of the city and the other one is inside the city and also we done research at the same time and same days. Our aim is gathering different variable and making the survey all kind of people or drivers. When cars comes to the parking area, observations were recorded in the safety belt is attached or not.

2.2. Materials

Seat belt usage (yes, no), sex (female, male), age group (18-30, 31-50, 51>), daily time at traffic (), active year on traffic(), and license year (1960-1980, 1981-2000, 2000>) and were recorded for each observer. Additionally, travelling place, which were in the city or outside the city, and time of the observation, which were “in the week–weekend” and “rush hour- off-peak hours” were also recorded. Two observation periods were created with time correlations like that “off-peak hours in the week or weekend” and “rush hour in the week or weekend”. For off-peak hours the morning time and for rush hour afternoon times were selected.

There were 4 observers who were grouped into two observer groups. One group made observation in city road and other group made observation outside the city at different times. Every observer worked 5 hours per self observation and interviewing, which include the survey. Each group worked at first in the morning (9:00-11:30) and in the afternoon (17:00-19:30). Each observation was made independently, and after observation, survey and interviewing were made done. Observers placed unnoticeably for not effecting drivers’ answers. The weather conditions were shiny and dry. Bad weather conditions were not included the research.

2.3. Procedure

In research, questionnaires were asked to 75 women and 75 men, totally a hundred fifty drivers. In these drivers, 73 of them are young drivers, who are 18-30 years old; 61 of them are adult drivers, who are 31-50 years old; and 16 people are older drivers, who are 50-71 years old.!’!!! These drivers were randomly selected. An interview form was developed and firstly observation was done and after that the interviewing was done with randomly selected observed drivers. The research was done with two groups and each group included two people. Each group worked on different places where in front of Kipa and Selway shopping centers. In front of Kipa Shopping center, there was an intense traffic in the city and rare traffic on the highway in front of the Selway shopping center. The interview form included a demographic information and information about background of driving and questions about seat belt usage or not usage. Information was included sex, age, license year, and how many hours daily time at traffic, active year on the traffic and seat belt usage of the participants. Moreover, seat belt usage causes and not usage causes were asked. According to participants’ seat belt usage or not usage information about their general usage for every time or never, then only neither seat belt usage reasons nor seat belt not usage reasons were asked. In addition, questions related to seat belt usage or not usage was asked.

All answers were controlled separately and for each question answer categories were obtained. Then, for each category, they correlated each other. In addition, frequency analyses were done because of situational conditions. For gender, which % of them were women and men; for age, which % of them was young, adult and older driver; and their total value of balance shits were determined. In addition, these surveys were done at two different times which are rush hours and at the weekend or in the week. Weather conditions and night time are not determined for this research.

Four answer categories were determined for the reported reasons to seat belt usage. Seat belt usage reasons were labeled as “inexperienced”, “avoiding punishment”, “safety”, and “previous crash experiences”. “In experienced” referred to not having enough experience and self-confidence to control them and their cars at the traffic can increase seat belt use. “Avoiding punishment” referred to a fear to catching by police because of not using seat belt to seat belt using reason. “Safety” referred to using seat belt for feeling in safe and protection from injury and fatality because of accident possibility for using the seat belt. “Previous crash experiences” referred to involved in an accident in the past or witnessing an accident and knowledge about a friend or relatives who had been in an accident for cause of seat belt use.

Four answer categories were determined for the reported reasons to not using seat belt which are “situational conditions”, “being at traffic continuously”, “discomfort” and “over trust to the driver”. “Situational conditions” referred to short trips to not use seat belt. “Being at traffic continuously” means that driving workers such as taxi drivers, long vehicle drivers who are at the traffic for long hours at every day do not want to use seat belt. “Discomfort” is related to feeling discomfort while using seat belt because feeling movement restriction, hot. “Over trust to the driver” included interviewed driver over trusted their driving skills and feeling accident risk was very low, and not need to use seat belt.

2.4. Statistical analysis

After all variables are collected, frequency analysis and chi-square were done. According to results minimum and maximum, mean and division etc are found for descriptive. For gender-seatbelt usage, age- seatbelt usage, age- license year, gender- license year, gender- daily time at traffic, daily time at traffic-seatbelt usage, seatbelt usage or not usage-place’s crosstabs and chi-square results were taken. For frequencies, gender, age, seal-belt usage or not usage, license year, active year on the traffic, daily time at traffic, place, seat- belt usage cause and not usage cause’s frequency tables were created.

Finally for gender, age, license year, active year on the traffic, daily time at traffic, place, seat- belt usage cause and not usage cause’s frequency tables were taken. After these, results were created which information was intersection or not.

3. Results

Our analyze focused on participants using of seat belt to the 150 people in which a target groups of present .We categorized two gender group which are man and woman. And we separate them with two dimensions. The man categorized with number one and the woman categorized with number two. Why we selected this category, the measure is scale so that we used scale measure. The results of measure showed us for gender is same number of participants and man-woman participants have same number of gender. The frequency, percent, valid percent are same.

The gender was separated three dimension or category. They were young, adult and old groups. The seat belt usage changed from age to age. The young and old age groups used seat belt more than. The age group results were that; the young age group was 73 people, adult was 61 people and the old age was 16 people. The young age group was more than other because the shopping centers were visited by young age groups to buy, travel and learn new products.

According to driving license, the time and using a car, results showed that they changed from past to present. The important and effective differences were that the taking of drive license at 1960-1980 was less than present. The date of taking drive license was separated three categories. These were; 1960-1980, 1981-2000 and 2001-2012. The present and past had difference. The percentage of the past from 1960 to 1980, the taking license and using car were less than the present. We could explain that with more details. From 2001 to 2012 showed us, the percentage of taking driver license was 69; however, according to past we did not see lots of changes from the present. Just a percentage of 0.7 was difference from past to present.

The using of drive license according to year was another analyzing method for understanding using of seat belt. The presented survey included more details to learn percentage of all. For that reason, using of seat belt according to years changed time to time. The resulting of using driving license for years showed us, from 1 to 10 years using drive license was more than others. The biggest percentage of using driving license changed with taking license year. When driver license’s year was increased, number of it decreased. The six number of gender use driving license. The usage of drive license per daily, biggest using of it was 1-5 hours. In addition to that, the other one was from 16 to 20 because the gender or people use their cars no more far away. They said that we have used car from working to home, and had not have enough time.

The last one was that usage or not usage of seat belt. We focused on 150 people from two different places and we separated them with two categories which were “yes” or “no”. The percentage of “yes” and the percentage of “no” answers changed more at result. The result showed that the percentage of “yes” was more than “no”. According to results gender’s 65.3% percentage used seat belt while driving car. But, some missing made at this result. The validity of using was same as with percentage.

All result showed that, the frequency method of study showed details of survey. On the other hand, mean, median, mode, std. deviation, ranges, minimum and maximum amounts demonstrated more details about using seat belt. The mean rate about gender, the intersection was 150, and the mean was 1.50; the median was 1.50; the mode was 1a; std. deviation was 0.502; range was 1; the minimum was 2 and the last one maximum was 1. For age, the intersection was 150, and the mean was 1.62; the median was 2.00; the mode was 1; std. deviation was 0.672; range was 2; the minimum was 1 and the last one maximum was 3. The taking of driving license results showed that the valid was same ’’number of person’’, did not have any missing; the mean was 2.37 and median was same as with age; the mode was 3, std. division was same; range, minimum and maximum were same as with age. The using of driver license for year showed that the mean changed 1.65; the median was 1.00; the mode was 1; the std. deviation was 0.843; the range was 3; minimum was 1 and the maximum was 4. For a daily time at traffic the mean was 1.71, and the median was same with year of using driving license. The mode was 1 and the std. deviation was 879; the ranges, minimum and maximum were same with year of using driver license. The using of seat belt result showed that valid of using seat belt was 150. The mean was 1.35; the median was 1.00; the mode was 1 and the std. deviation was 0.478; the range was 1; the minimum was 1 and maximum was 2. As a result of these, different analyze techniques could be used to understand better. The crosstab especially Chi-square tests showed that how two different dimensions could be separated for special measures. For example, gender-driving license year combination could be created. According to measures, driving license year changed year to year with gender. The total validity was 150; however, driving license year changed with gender and year. The male group took their driving license at past more than present; however, the female group did not take their license at past such as male group. Females took their license more than male, after the 2001. The woman took 5 licenses in 1960-1980, took 27 licenses in 1981-2000; however, they took 43 licenses in 2001-2012. In addition, man’s rate was 8 licenses in 1960-1980 and was 41 licenses in 1981-2000. In 2001-2012, the number of license decreased more. According to Pearson Chi-Square test, the test or analyze was value and defining. The rate of Pearson Chi-Square was “Asymp. Sig.(2-sided)” 0.021.

The gender and daily time at traffic were different for hours in a day. For male, they were at the traffic more hours than female. However, the point of best difference in here was that females were more than male for being at traffic for fewer hours because they went out of shopping and made their works. Male went far away road and they were at the traffic for more hours. According chi-square test, the value of using driver license rate was valuable and appropriate. The rate was “Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)” was 0.041.

The seat belt usage changed from gender to gender. Seat belt was used for saving, avoiding punishment, situational factors and habit. Thus, “seat belt usage-gender” relation was analyzed and correlated. Seat belt usage changed from gender to gender. The usage of seat belt rate was low for male; however, female rate was high. Female usage valid was 58, male seat belt usage valid was 40. In addition, for not using seat belt rate, female rate was low and male rate was high. The validity of not using seat belt for man was 35; however, female rate was 17. The result showed that, using or not using of seat belt and gender relation had more difference at correlation. The chi-square analyze showed that the Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) was valuable and appropriate. The rate of this was 0.002.

For seat belt usage or not usage- age relation, the usage of seat belt rate changed with age to age. The young group was 48, the adult was 41 and the old one 9. Not use of seat belt rate was for young group rate was 25, for adult rate was 20 and the old rate was 7. According to results, the age and using of seat belt rate had more difference. The young group used more careful and supporedt to using of seat belt. For old group, the rate of using seat belt was very high and they did not choose to drive for long and rush hours. The chi-square result was Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) 0.710 and this was not valuable and appropriate.

4. Discussion and Conclusion

In the research, seat belt usage or not usage reasons were investigated qualitatively during different conditions and situations. There were some travelling conditions, which were an intense traffic in the city and rare traffic on the highway, daytime and in good weather. Gender and age-related differences in seat-belt usage or not usage were examined. The relationship of these variables with license year, active year on the traffic, daily time at traffic, and place is examined.

“Avoiding punishment”, “safety”, “situational factors” and “habit” are most frequently reported reasons for using seat belt which were found in common reasons at previous studies (Chliaoutakis et al., 2000; Fockler and Cooper, 1990). “Safety” was the most mentioned reason for using seat belt. After that, “avoiding punishment” reason came second to because of using seat belt, then ”inexperienced” and “previous crash experiences” were came. “Avoiding punishment” reason which commonly reported for seat belt usage shows address the control of increasing seat belt usage in Turkey and necessity of traffic fines (Simsekoglu and Lajunen, 2008).

The most common reason for not using a seat belt from at the top to at the bottom were “situational conditions”, “not believing the effectiveness of seat belt while underestimating the danger”, “discomfort” and “not having a habit” according to previous studies (Begg and Langley, 2000; Chliaoutakis et al., 2000; Fockler and Cooper, 1990). At present study, “being at traffic continuously” was the most common reason to not using a seat belt. “Over trust to the driver” was secondly most mentioned reason to not using a seat belt. Then, “discomfort” and “situational conditions” were come orderly.

Not using seat belt was parallel to the same patterns of the risky driver behaviors such as speeding, rule compliance, and diving while intoxicated. Young male drivers seem to engage in risky driving more often than other driver groups (Simsekoglu and Lajunen, 2008). According to research results, in general seat belt using was more than not usage. Gender differences for seat belt usage, women used the seat belt more than men. Male drivers underestimated the hazards involved in various driving activities (Dejoy, 1992) and men tended to rate their driving skills as better than average in all driving components, whereas such a positive bias was more limited among young (Mckenna, Stanier, Lewis, 1991). According to chi-square results, the value was supported. For male, result for seat belt usage was more than not seat belt usage with little differences. Being female and being older were related to seat belt use frequency. (Simsekoglu and Lajunen, 2008).

Age-related differences for seat belt usage, result showed that young people, adults and older people all of them used seat belt in general. For adult drivers, there was a huge difference to use seat belt. They had more scale than other age scales. However, chi-square results showed that these results were not intersection

The results indicated that there was no relation between gender - license year and age related differences - license year for seat belt usage. Gender - daily time at traffic, women were more at the traffic at 1-5 hours than men. Men were slightly more than women for 6-10 hours at the traffic. Moreover, men were more than women for 11-15 hours at the traffic. Additionally, men were at the traffic for 16-20 hours more than women with huge differences.

Seatbelt usage-place relationship showed that, in the city (at Kipa), seatbelt usage more than, at the highway (at Selway). However, according to Simsekoglu and Lajunen’s study, seat belt use frequencies were highest in outside city such as Selway highway in spite of in inside city seat belt frequency was low in day time and good weather conditions.

Seatbelt usage- daily time at traffic results showed that people, who were 1-5 hours at the traffic, use seat belt more than other hours. For 6-10 hours, people were used but there was slightly difference than not usage. For 11-15 hours at the traffic, people both %50 used or not. For 16-20 hours at the traffic, people were %60 rate they use. For results, these were not supported.

Although more work and research are needed to obtain a more understanding for seat belt usage according to gender and age differences. Findings of the study have important information for seat belt usage or not usage according to normative variables. Data shows that women used seatbelt more than man. Additionally, young, adult, and older drivers all of them use seat belt in general. For daily time, women used more than men in short driving hour such as 1-5 hours, which include more seat belt usage than other daily times.

4.1. Limitations of the study

In presented study, an important limitation was that more of the participants were young, who were generally educated. Young drivers did not represent well the general population of Turkish drivers, because 73 people of 150 people were young. They have large scale of the age demographic rate. On the other hand, bad weather conditions were not included in the present research, which affect the seat belt usage rate positively. Additionally, other studies reported that older drivers were less likely to be involved in crashes during adverse weather conditions or to have crashes attributed to environmental circumstances (Cooper, 1990; Hakamies-Blomqvist, 1993, 1994a,b). Moreover, older drivers had more flexibility for their driving time. Their choosing not to travel in bad weather was a definite indication of risk avoidance on their parts. (McGwin Jr, and Brown, 1999). These have an affect on seat belt usage in general according to age and weather conditions. Moreover, in present study, there were only 16 older drivers, which can not be enough to represent the general. On the other hand, there was a considerable social desirability, which is contradiction of the people about their answers while doing interview. They might have tendency to make their answers more acceptable. Thus, social desirability can cause their seat belt usage frequencies. Contradiction between observed and reported seat belt usage rates has an inaccurate description with social desirability and automatically trigged seat belt use schemas’ inaccurate descriptions, which is a person cannot be aware of, are explained by some previous studies (Folkler and Cooper, 1990; Stulginskas et al., 1985; Yoshida, 1998).

In spite of seat belt usage rate seemed high in generally according to recent study, this was not acceptable for other cities or for all Turkey. A large scale seat belt usage research was needed for generalization.

References

Begg, D.J., Langley,D.J., 2000. Seat-belt use and related behaviour among young adults. J.Safety Res. 31, 211-220.

Chliaoutakis, E.J., Gnardellis, C., Drakou, I., Darviri, C, Sboukis, V., 2000. Modelling the factors related to seat belt use by young drivers of Athens. Acc. Anal. Prevent. 32, 815-825.

Cooper, P.J, 1990. Differences in accident characteristics among elderly drivers and between elderly and middle aged drivers. Acc. Anal. Prevent. 22, 499-508.

Dejoy, D.M., 1991. An examination of gender differences in traffic accident risk perception. Acc. Anal. Prevent. 24, 237-246.

Elvik, R., Vaa, T., 2004. The handbook of Road Safety measures. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Fockler, S.K.F., Cooper, P.J.,1990. Situational characteristics of safety belt use. Acc. Anal. Prevent. 22, 109-118.

Hakamies-Blomqvist, L., 1993. Fatal accidents of older drivers. Acc. Anal. Prevent. 25, 19-27

Hakamies-Blomqvist, L., 1994. Compansations in older drivers as reflected in their fatal accident. Acc. Anal. Prevent. 26, 107-112,

Hakamies-Blomqvist, L., 1994. Accident characteristics of older drivers: can findings based on fatal accidents be generalized? Journal of Traffic Medicine 22, 19-25.

McGwin Jr, G., Brown, D.B., 1999. Characteristics of traffic crashes amoung young, middle-aged, and older drivers. Acc. Anal. Prevent. 31, 181-198.

McKenna, F.P., Stanier, R.A., & Lewis, C., 1991. Factors underlying illusory self-assessment of driving skill in males and females. Acc. Anal. Prevent. 23, 45-52.

Simsekoglu,O., Lajunen,T., 2008. Why Turks do not use seat belts? An interview study. Acc. Anal. Prevent. 40, 470-478.

Stulginskas, J.V., Verreault, R., Pless, B., 1985. Acomperison of observed and reported restraint use by chidren and adults. Acc. Anal. Prevent. 17, 381-386.

T.C. Emniyet Genel Müdürlüğü, Trafik Hizetleri Başkanlığı. (1999) Ülkemizde Emniyet Kemeri Kullanımı, Trafik Araştırma Merkezi Müdürlüğü Yayınları, Ankara.

Tables and Figures

Table 1

| |Frequency |User Seat|Not User |Pearson |Likelihood Ratio |Linear-by-Linear |
| |Percentage |Belt |Seat Belt| | |Association |
|Sex | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|Male |75=50% |40 |35 | | | |
|Female |75=50% |58 |17 | | | |
|Asymp. Sig. | | | |,002 | | |
|(2-sided) | | | | |,020 |,002 |
|Age | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|Young |73=48,7% |48 |25 | | | |
|Adult |61=40,7% |41 |20 | | | |
|Old |16=10,7% |95 |7 | | | |
|Asymp. Sig. | | | | | | |
|(2-sided) | | | |,710 |,717 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |,653 |
| Sheet 1: |
|a. 0 cells (,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 26,00. |
|Computed only for a 2x2 table |
|*p should be less than 0,05 |
| |

Table 2

| |NUMBER |PERCENTAGE |
|SEX |150 |%100 |
|AGE | | |
|Young |73 |%48,7 |
|Adult |61 |%40,7 |
|Old |16 |%10,7 |
|PLACE | | |
|City |84 |%56 |
|Intercity |66 |%44 |
|USİNG | | |
|Yes |98 |%65,3 |
|No |52 |%34,7 |
| | | |
| | | |
|TİME |13 |%8,7 |
|TAKİNG |68 |%45,3 |
|1 |69 |%46,0 |
|2 | | |
|3 |82 |%54,7 |
|USİNG |44 |%29,3 |
|1 |18 |%12,0 |
|2 |6 |%4,0 |
|3 | | |
|4 |78 |%52,0 |
|DAİLY |46 |%30,7 |
|1 |18 |%12,0 |
|2 |8 |%5,3 |
|3 | | |
|4 | | |

Appendix

Work distribution:

1-Abstract and Introduction parts – NEHİR KURŞUN 2-Method of the study part - NEHİR KURŞUN 2.1. Participant part (who are, features etc) 2.2. Material part 3. Procedure part 3-Report part – FATİH YAŞAR 4-Discussion and conclusion parts - NEHİR KURŞUN 1. Limitations