AJPH
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 78, Issue 5 548-552, Copyright © 1988 by American Public Health Association

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow A correction has been published
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hingson, R
Right arrow Articles by Schiavonnet, T
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hingson, R
Right arrow Articles by Schiavonnet, T
Repeal of the Massachusetts seat belt law.

R Hingson, S M Levenson, T Heeren, T Mangione, C Rodgers, T Schiavone, R P Hertz and T Schiavonnet

Boston University School of Public Health.

In November 1986, the Massachusetts mandatory seat belt use law repealed in a referendum by a 53 per cent to 47 per cent vote. In an anonymous random digit telephone survey of 1,046 adults in Massachusetts in summer 1986, while the law was in effect, 61 per cent of respondents had said they would vote in favor of the law. A post-repeal follow-up of 80 per cent of these persons revealed initial supporters and opponents of the law were equally likely to vote, but 15 per cent of the summer supporters switched their opinions and voted for repeal, compared to only 4 per cent of summer opponents who switched. In addition, a separate survey of 167 households that had refused to answer the summer survey indicated that survey nonrespondents were more likely to vote against the law than for it. Those opposing the law saw it as an infringement on personal liberty and believed it was not effective in reducing injury and death.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Health Educ BehavHome page
D. C. Girasek and A. C. Gielen
The Effectiveness of Injury Prevention Strategies: What Does the Public Believe?
Health Educ Behav, June 1, 2003; 30(3): 287 - 304.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
J Law Med EthicsHome page
R. Hingson and J. Howland
Alcohol, Injury, and Legal Controls: Some Complex Interactions
J. Law Med. Ethics, March 1, 1989; 17(1): 58 - 68.
[PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1988 by the American Public Health Association