Información de la revista
Vol. 28. Núm. 4.
Páginas 305-308 (Julio - Agosto 2014)
Respuestas rápidas
Compartir
Compartir
Descargar PDF
Más opciones de artículo
Visitas
2029
Vol. 28. Núm. 4.
Páginas 305-308 (Julio - Agosto 2014)
Original breve
DOI: 10.1016/j.gaceta.2014.01.002
Open Access
Safety belt and mobile phone usage in vehicles in Barcelona (Spain)
Uso del cinturón de seguridad y del teléfono móvil en los vehículos de Barcelona (España)
Visitas
2029
Jose M Martínez-Sáncheza,b,c,??
Autor para correspondencia
jmmartinez@iconcologia.net

Corresponding author.
, Ariadna Curtoa,d,e, Marcela Fua,b,f, Cristina Martíneza,b,g, Xisca Suredab,f, Montse Ballbèa,b,f, Esteve Fernándeza,b,f
a Tobacco Control Unit, Cancer Prevention and Control Programme, Institut Català d’Oncologia ICO, L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain
b Cancer Control and Prevention Group, Institut d’Investigació Biomèdica de Bellvitge-IDIBELL, L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain
c Biostatistics Unit, Department of Basic Science, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Sant Cugat del Vallès, Barcelona, Spain
d Centre for Research in Environmental Epidemiology (CREAL), Barcelona, Spain
e CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Spain
f Department of Clinical Sciences, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
g Medicine and Health Sciences School, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain
Este artículo ha recibido
2029
Visitas

Under a Creative Commons license
Información del artículo
Resumen
Texto completo
Bibliografía
Descargar PDF
Estadísticas
Tablas (2)
Table 1. Prevalence, crude and adjusted Odd Ratios for non-use of safety belt by drivers in private cars by sex in the city of Barcelona, Spain (2011).
Table 2. Prevalence, crude and adjusted Odd Ratios for mobile phone use while driving during a moment of the trip by sex in the city of Barcelona, Spain (2011).
Mostrar másMostrar menos
Material adicional (1)
Abstract
Objectives

To describe the prevalence and correlates of safety belt and mobile phone usage in vehicles in the city of Barcelona (Spain).

Methods

We performed a study using direct observation with a cross-sectional design. We selected 2,442 private cars, commercial vehicles, and taxis from all districts of Barcelona.

Results

The prevalence of people not wearing safety belt was 10.5% among drivers, 4.6% among front seat passengers, and 32.2% among some of the rear passengers. It was higher among the passengers than among the drivers, regardless of the type of the vehicle. The prevalence of mobile phone usage while driving during a moment of the trip was 3.8%.

Conclusion

Our study shows noticeably high prevalence of people not wearing safety belt in the rear seats. Moreover, four out of one hundred drivers still use the mobile phone while driving during a moment of the trip.

Keywords:
Traffic accidents
Observational study
Resumen
Objetivo

Describir la prevalencia y asociaciones del uso del cinturón de seguridad y teléfono móvil en vehículos en la ciudad de Barcelona.

Métodos

Se realizó un estudio transversal mediante observación directa de los vehículos de la ciudad de Barcelona (n=2.442 vehículos privados, comerciales y taxis).

Resultados

La prevalencia del no uso del cinturón de seguridad fue del 10,5% entre los conductores, 4,6% entre los co-pilotos y 32,2% entre algunos de los pasajeros de los asientos traseros. La prevalencia fue superior en los pasajeros que en los conductores, independientemente del tipo de vehículo. La prevalencia del uso del móvil mientras se conducía en un momento del viaje en todos los vehículos fue de 3,8%.

Conclusión

La prevalencia del no uso del cinturón de seguridad en los asientos traseros fue notablemente alta. Además, cuatro de cada 100 conductores todavía utilizan el móvil mientras conducen en un momento del viaje.

Palabras clave:
Accidentes de tráfico
Estudio observacional
Texto completo
Introduction

Road traffic injuries are a major public health problem; they are responsible of a great number of years of potential life lost being the ninth cause of mortality and morbidity around the world.1

Several of the traffic injuries could be prevented by modifying certain drivers’ behaviours. The use of safety belt is considered one of the most effective passive systems in preventing traffic injuries. It reduces up to 75% of the mortality in head-on collisions.2 Non-use of safety belt is associated with more serious injuries in traffic collisions.3 Moreover, mobile phone use while driving is also associated with an increased risk of traffic collisions.4,5

The objective of this study was to estimate the prevalence and correlates of safety belt and mobile phone usage in vehicles in the city of Barcelona.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional study in the city of Barcelona in 2011 on the use of seatbelt of all occupants of the vehicles and use of mobile phone of drivers during a moment of the trip, through direct observation (n=2,442 vehicles). The methodology of this study has been previously described.6,7 In brief, we selected 40 public roads (4 per district) and a traffic light was selected as point of observation, from where a trained observer conducted the direct observation of the vehicles. The observations were made when the traffic light was red for vehicles. We systematically selected the first two vehicles in the adjacent lane to the observer. We excluded adjacent lanes when they were exclusive for buses and bicycles. The study included all private cars, commercial vehicles, and taxis.

The driver's variables were: use of the safety belt (yes/no), use of the mobile phone or its manipulation with the hands to talk or to send a text message during a moment of the trip (yes/no), approximate age (18-34/35-64/≥65 years old) and sex (man/woman). We only included the use of handheld mobile phone, excluding the use of headset and hands-free mobile phones. Passengers’ variables (front seat and rear passenger) were only: total number of passengers (excluding the driver) and number of passengers using the safety belt. We also collected contextual variables (time and number of lanes of the public road).

We calculated the prevalence rates and used chi-square test to compare those rates among drivers. We also fitted logistic regression models to obtain the adjusted odds ratios.

Results

The prevalence of people not wearing safety belt in all vehicles was 10.5% among drivers, 4.6% among front seat passengers, and 32.2% among some of the rear passengers. The prevalence of non-use of safety belt was higher among some of the rear passengers, regardless the type of the vehicle (table I of the Appendix).

There was a statistically significant difference in the prevalence of drivers who were not wearing safety belt according to age in all vehicles (p=0.001), particularly in private cars (p=0.007). In the bivariate analysis, only the variables age (≥65 years old) was significantly related to non-use of safety belt in private vehicles (Table 1).

Table 1.

Prevalence, crude and adjusted Odd Ratios for non-use of safety belt by drivers in private cars by sex in the city of Barcelona, Spain (2011).

  PrevalenceLogistic regression modelsLogistic regression models
    % (95%CI)  p*  ORc  (95%CI)  ORa  (95%CI) 
ALL
Sex
Man  1224  2.3 (1.5-3.1)  0.215  1.69  (0.73-3.88)  0.220  1.59  (0.69-3.70)  0.279 
Woman  511  1.4 (0.4-2.4)       
Age (years)
18-34  456  0.9 (0.0-1.8)  0.007   
35-64  1154  2.2 (1.4-3.0)    2.50  (0.87-7.23)  0.090  2.55  (0.88-7.39)  0.084 
≥65  125  4.8 (1.1-8.5)    5.70  (1.58-20.52)  0.008  5.40  (1.49-19.54)  0.010 
Time
8-111019  2.0 (1.1-2.9)  0.847     
17-19716  2.1 (1.0-3.2)    1.07  (0.54-2.10)  0.847  1.12  (0.57-2.21)  0.740 
MEN
Age      0.037             
18-34  328  1.2 (0.0-2.4)       
35-64  786  2.3 (1.3-3.3)    1.90  (0.64-5.65)  0.250  1.91  (0.64-5.70)  0.244 
≥65  110  5.5 (1.2-9.8)    4.67  (1.29-16.88)  0.019  4.74  (1.31-17.16)  0.018 
Time
8-11724  2.2 (1.1-3.3)  0.827     
17-19500  2.4 (1.1-3.7)    1.09  (0.51-2.32)  0.827  1.15  (0.54-2.50)  0.721 
WOMEN
Age (years)      0.252             
18-34  128  0.0 (0.0-4.1)   
35-64  368  1.9 (0.5-3.3)   
≥65  15  0.0 (0.0-20.4)   
Time      1.000             
8-11295  1.4 (0.1-2.7)       
17-19216  1.4 (0.5-4.1)    1.02  (0.23-4.63)  0.975  1.02  (0.23-4.63)  0.975 

ORc: crude odds ratio

ORa: adjusted odds ratio derived from a logistic regression model adjusted for all the variables in the table.

CI: confidence interval

*

Chi-square test and Fisher's exact test

The prevalence of use of mobile phones while driving during a moment of the trip was 3.8%. It was higher in private cars (4.1%), in women (5.5%), and when the drivers were alone (5.2%). There was also an inverse trend of the prevalence with age (p for trend<0.001) (Table 2). Bivariate logistic regression models showed the mobile phone use while driving was higher when the driver was a woman, had an age range of 18-34 years old, when drivers were alone, and the vehicle type was a private or commercial one (Table 2).

Table 2.

Prevalence, crude and adjusted Odd Ratios for mobile phone use while driving during a moment of the trip by sex in the city of Barcelona, Spain (2011).

  PrevalenceLogistic regression modelsLogistic regression models
    % (95%CI)  p*  ORc  (95%CI)  ORa  (95%CI) 
ALL  2442  3.8 (3.0-4.6)   
Sex      0.015             
Man  1899  3.3 (2.5-4.1)       
Woman  543  5.5 (3.6-7.4)    1.73  (1.11-2.71)  0.016  1.54  (0.95-2.47)  0.074 
Age (years)      <0.001             
18-34  606  6.4 (4.5-8.3)    9.35  (1.27-68.69)  0.028  7.27  (0.98-53.78)  0.052 
35-64  1699  3.1 (2.3-3.9)    4.29  (0.59-31.3)  0.150  3.85  (0.52-28.33)  0.186 
≥65  137  0.7 (0.1-4.0)       
Passengers      <0.001             
Yes  913  1.3 (0.6-2.0)       
No  1529  5.2 (4.1-6.3)    4.14  (2.25-7.65)  <0.001  3.58  (1.78-7.22)  <0.001 
Passengers<14 years old      0.015             
Yes  271  1.1 (0.4-3.2)       
No  2171  4.1 (3.3-4.9)    3.82  (1.20-12.51)  0.023  1.36  (0.359-5.14)  0.652 
Vehicle type      0.059             
Private  1736  4.1 (3.2-5.0)    4.73  (1.15-19.43)  0.031  3.77  (0.90-15.80)  0.069 
Commercial  482  3.9 (2.2-5.6)    4.55  (1.05-19.73)  0.043  3.58  (0.82-15.85)  0.090 
Taxi  224  0.9 (5.3-12.7)       
Time      0.236             
8-111446  3.4 (2.5-4.3)       
17-19996  4.3 (3.0-5.6)    1.29  (0.85-1.95)  0.237  1.36  (0.89-2.08)  0.152 
MEN
Age (years)      <0.001             
18-34  470  6.2 (4.0-8.4)    7.96  (1.07-59.01)  0.042  6.75  (0.90-50.43)  0.063 
35-64  1307  2.4 (1.6-3.2)    3.04  (0.41-22.42)  0.276  3.05  (0.41-22.74)  0.276 
≥65  122  0.8 (0.1-4.5)         
Passengers      <0.001             
Yes  720  1.3 (0.5-2.1)         
No  1179  4.5 (3.3-5.7)    3.72  (1.82-7.58)  <0.001  3.47  (1.69-7.12)  0.001 
Passengers<14 years old      0.014             
Yes  165  0.0 (0.0-2.3)   
No  1734  3.6 (2.7-4.5)   
Vehicle type      0.114             
Private  1225  3.5 (2.5-4.5)    3.93  (0.94-16.34)  0.060  3.46  (0.82-14.59)  0.091 
Commercial  456  3.7 (2.0-5.4)    4.18  (0.96-18.27)  0.057  3.24  (0.73-14.34)  0.121 
Taxi  218  0.9 (0.3-3.3)       
Time      0.441             
8-111131  3.0 (2.0-4.0)       
17-19768  3.6 (2.3-4.9)    1.22  (0.73-2.03)  0.442  1.29  (0.77-2.16)  0.339 
WOMEN
Age (years)      0.390             
18-34  136  7.4 (3.0-11.8)    1.54  (0.70-3.67)  0.284  1.45  (0.66-3.22)  0.358 
35-64  392  5.1 (2.9-7.3)       
≥65  15  0.0 (0.0-20.4)   
Passengers      0.003             
Yes  193  1.6 (0.5-4.5)       
No  350  7.7 (4.9-10.5)    5.29  (1.58-17.69)  0.007  5.29  (1.58-17.34)  0.007 
Passengers<14 years old      0.176             
Yes  106  2.8 (1.0-8.0)     
No  437  6.2 (3.9-8.5)    2.26  (0.67-7.60)  0.187 
Vehicle type      0.746             
Private  551  5.5 (3.6-7.4)         
Commercial  26  7.7 (2.1-24.1)    1.15  (0.26-5.06)  0.853  1.08  (0.24-4.83)  0.922 
Taxi  0.0 (0.0-39.0)   
Time      0.360             
8-11315  4.8 (2.4-7.2)       
17-19228  6.6 (3.4-9.8)    1.41  (0.67-2.94)  0.362  1.52  (0.72-3.20)  0.271 

ORc: crude odds ratio.

ORa: adjusted odds ratio derived from a logistic regression model adjusted for all variables in the table.

CI: confidence interval.

*

Chi-square test and Fisher's exact test.

The prevalence of non-use safety belt and use of mobile phone during a moment of trip according to type of vehicles are shown in table II and III of the Appendix in the online version of this article.

Discussion

The prevalence of passengers not wearing the safety belt in the rear seat of vehicles was noticeably higher than the prevalence observed in drivers and front seat passengers in the urban area of Barcelona.

The prevalence of drivers not wearing the safety belt observed in our study is lower than those reported in Italy8 and England9 studies, using also direct observation (24.3% and 15.3%, respectively) and even lower if compared to data obtained by questionnaires in 2002 in Spain.10 At that time, before of the introduction of the penalty point system,11 the prevalence of non-use of safety belt in the urban area was 40% among drivers, 45% among front seat passengers, and 80% among some of the rear passengers.10 As in Spain the use of safety belt is not compulsory among taxi drivers in urban streets and roads,11 the figure of the non-usage that we observed could be understandable. But is not the case of the taxi passengers, for whom its use is always compulsory. However, we found that taxi passengers, either front seat passengers or rear passengers, used less the safety belt than private and commercial vehicles’ occupants (table I of the Appendix).

The prevalence of mobile phone usage while driving during a moment of the trip in our study was similar than those observed in other European8,9 and Spanish12 cities, as derived from studies with a similar direct observation design (prevalence between 2.5% and 4.5%). In Michigan (USA), Eby et al.13 found that the mobile phone use while driving increased from 2.7% in 2001 to 5.8% in 2005. However, we found a similar prevalence in a study conducted in Lleida (a median-size Spanish city) in 2002 (3.3%), before the introduction of the Spanish penalty points regulation.11 The lower prevalence in our study could be partially explained because the General Traffic Directorate conducted eight campaigns to prevent distractions while driving between 2008 and 2011.14 These campaigns included media coverage (TV, radio, newspapers, etc.) of the risks associated to the use of the mobile phone while driving and the surveillance of the non-use of the mobile phone while driving.

The main limitation of this study derives from the inherent observer bias, specifically with the age variable, as people can look younger or older than they actually are. However, the pilot study7 carried out by two independent observers showed an almost perfect agreement in the observation. The prevalence rates of mobile phone use while driving could also underestimate by the inability of the direct observation during a stop at the traffic light to monitor the entire trip of the driver, who could have used the mobile phone at any time or even do more than one call during the trip. One study conducted in Spain with self-reported information showed that 15.1% of drivers between 18 and 64 years old used the mobile phone while driving regularly or fairly often in the last 30 days.15 A strength of an observational study like this compared with studies based on self-report is the objectivity in the information, free of information bias, that could occur with self-report. Our data could also underestimate the actual prevalence because we did not make direct observations during nights and weekends when many of unsafe driving behaviours occur such as alcohol use while driving.

In conclusion, public health policies should improve interventions focusing on increasing the use of safety belt to reduce the road traffic injuries, particularly among rear passengers. Furthermore, we recommend the launch of campaigns addressed to surveillance the compliance of the non-use of mobile phone, particularly among women and young people, and to increase the awareness of risk and risk-taking behaviours while driving.

What is already known about this subject?

Road traffic injuries are a major public health problem; they are responsible of a great number of years of potential life lost. Several of those injuries could be prevented by modifying certain drivers’ behaviours, such as promoting the use of safety belts and non-use of mobile phone while driving.

What does this paper add?

The prevalence of passengers who were not wearing the safety belt in the rear seat of vehicles was noticeably high. Surveillance of compliance risk-taking behaviour while driving should be increased.

Contributors

All authors contributed in the design of the study. AC collected the data, prepared the database and analysed the data. JMMS and EF revised with her the results. All the authors contributed to the interpretation of the results. JMMS drafted the manuscript. All authors approved the final version.

Funding

This project was funded by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Government of Spain (RTICC RD06/0020/0089) and the Ministry of Universities and Research, Government of Catalonia (grant 2009SGR192).

Conflict of interest

None.

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the collaboration of Dr. Ángel López Rodríguez for providing “la Araña de Tráfico” of the city of Barcelona.

References
[1]
World Health Organization. Global status report on road safety: time for action. Geneva; 2009.
[2]
C.S. Crandall, L.M. Olson, D.P. Sklar.
Mortality reduction with air bag and seat belt use in head-on passenger car collisions.
Am J Epidemiol, 153 (2001), pp. 219-224
[3]
N.J. Hodson-Walker.
The value of safety belts: a review.
Can Med Assoc J, 102 (1970), pp. 391-393
[4]
A.T. McCartt, L.A. Hellinga, K.A. Bratiman.
Cell phones and driving: review of research.
Traffic Inj Prev, 7 (2006), pp. 89-106
[5]
S.P. McEvoy, M.R. Stevenson, A.T. McCartt, et al.
Role of mobile phones in motor vehicle crashes resulting in hospital attendance: a case-crossover study.
[6]
A. Curto, J.M. Martinez-Sanchez, E. Fernandez.
Tobacco consumption and secondhand smoke exposure in vehicles: a cross-sectional study.
BMJ Open, 1 (2011), pp. e000418
[7]
J.M. Martinez-Sanchez, A. Curto, E. Fernandez.
Agreement between two observers in the measurement of smoking and use of safety belt and cell phones in vehicles.
[8]
C. Lorini, E. Pellegrino, F. Mannocci, et al.
Use of seat belts and mobile phone while driving in Florence: trend from 2005 to 2009.
Epidemiol Prev, 36 (2012), pp. 34-40
[9]
L. Walker, J. Williams, K. Jamrozik.
Unsafe driving behaviour and four wheel drive vehicles: observational study.
[10]
Dirección General de Tráfico. Comienza una nueva campaña de la DGT ¡apretarse el cinturón! TRÁFICO. 2002;Septiembre-octubre:6.
[11]
Boletín Oficial del Estado (BOE). Ley 17/2005, de 19 de julio, por la que se regula el permiso y la licencia de conducción por puntos y se modifica el texto articulado de la ley sobre tráfico, circulación de vehículos a motor y seguridad vial. Boletín Oficial del Estado (BOE), 182 de 20/07/2005. Madrid: Gobierno de España, 2005.
[12]
I. Astrain, J. Bernaus, J. Claverol, et al.
Prevalence of mobile phone use while driving vehicles.
Gac Sanit, 17 (2003), pp. 66-69
[13]
D.W. Eby, J.M. Vivoda.
St Louis RM. Driver hand-held cellular phone use: a four-year analysis.
J Safety Res, 37 (2006), pp. 261-265
[14]
Dirección General de Tráfico. Campañas de divulgación. Available at: http://www.dgt.es/was6/portal/contenidos/visor_multimedia/#app=7f51&c92c-selectedIndex=0 [Accessed 9 Dec 2013].
[15]
Mobile device use while driving--United States and seven European countries, 2011. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2013; 62:177-82.
Copyright © 2013. SESPAS
Idiomas
Gaceta Sanitaria

Suscríbase a la newsletter

Opciones de artículo
Herramientas
Material suplementario
es en

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?

es en
Política de cookies Cookies policy
Utilizamos cookies propias y de terceros para mejorar nuestros servicios y mostrarle publicidad relacionada con sus preferencias mediante el análisis de sus hábitos de navegación. Si continua navegando, consideramos que acepta su uso. Puede cambiar la configuración u obtener más información aquí. To improve our services and products, we use "cookies" (own or third parties authorized) to show advertising related to client preferences through the analyses of navigation customer behavior. Continuing navigation will be considered as acceptance of this use. You can change the settings or obtain more information by clicking here.