The use of restraints in motor vehicles is less common in minority and low-income populations than in the general population. A preliminary survey of Hispanic preschool-aged children in west Dallas, Tex, conducted in 1997 showed much lower child restraint use (19% of those surveyed) than among preschool children of all races in the rest of the city (62%). Because there are few reports of successful programs to increase child restraint use among Hispanics, we undertook to implement and evaluate such a program. The program was conducted by bilingual staff and was tailored for this community. It was successful in increasing both child restraint use and driver seat belt use.

The Safe Communities approach was successful in promoting the use of child restraints in motor vehicles through a multifaceted intervention that included efforts in various community settings, instructional classes and child safety seat distribution.

Traffic control devices are intended to promote safe and uniform operation of motorized and nonmotorized traffic using the roadway. Motorists rely on traffic control devices to provide information about traffic laws and regulations, to identify potential roadway hazards, and to provide information to help them find their desired destinations. However, traffic control devices serve little purpose if they are not understood by a significant proportion of the driving population. The findings and recommendations of a 5-year research study conducted by the Texas Transportation Institute to assess and improve motorist understanding of traffic control devices are presented. Phase I of the project was devoted to several evaluations of 52 devices, administered to 2,414 Texas drivers. Phase II of the project was devoted to the development and evaluation of alternative designs for 10 traffic signs identified in Phase I that exhibited potential for driver misunderstanding. The Phase II evaluations included four focus groups, an initial statewide survey of 747 Texas drivers, and a follow-up survey of 212 drivers. The results of all evaluations were analyzed to distinguish significant comprehension difficulties. Recommendations for each device were based on these results and include retaining the current standard design because of adequate comprehension levels, modifying the design or use of the device to increase comprehension levels, or conducting further research to better understand driver comprehension difficulties.

Driver understanding of the current U.S. system of yellow–white pavement markings was assessed through a driver survey. The survey was used to evaluate drivers’ ability to describe the pavement marking color code, drivers’ reliance on pavement marking patterns when interpreting marking messages, and drivers’ reliance on pavement marking color when interpreting marking messages. Researchers surveyed 851 drivers in 5 states, with respondents representing 47 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The survey results indicate that drivers tend to use signs and other traffic as the primary cue to determine whether a road is one-way or two-way. A substantial proportion of respondents had an understanding of the use of marking color to differentiate between one-way and two-way roads, but this knowledge is not the primary tool that drivers use to distinguish the direction of travel on a road. Approximately 75% of the drivers surveyed understood the basic concept that a single broken yellow line separates opposing traffic on a two-lane road. The presence of a solid line (either double solid or solid and broken) in the centerline increases comprehension of directional flow to approximately 85%; more than 90% of the drivers surveyed understood that a solid line (either double solid or solid and broken) prohibits passing. Almost 95% of drivers indicated that passing is permitted with a broken line. The survey results indicate that the yellow–white pavement marking system is better understood than previously believed.