SAFE COMMUNITIES SURVEY RESULTS 2000

Transcription

1 SAFE COMMUNITIES SURVEY RESULTS 2000 SUBSAMPLE: TAMU-CC STUDENTS Provided to Texas A & M University Corpus Christi Kristen M. Machac, Research Assistant Philip W. Rhoades, Ph.D. August 15, 2001

2 ADMINISTRATION OF THE SURVEY The Safe Communities Survey was designed to address safety concerns, perceptions of risk, safety knowledge, and driving behaviors. This project was envisioned as a needs assessment or problem identification project in support of the Safe Communities planning effort. The project was committed by grant provisions to collect 1,000 surveys from county residents. Within this number, the Safe Communities Coalition wanted to survey law enforcement, emergency medical service, and health care professionals, as well as young adults, senior citizens, and poor residents. This required the use of several processes. The survey was completed from May to July of The most scientifically sound processes involved a survey of the county population by mail and surveys of the city police department s patrol officers and the county sheriff department s staff. The mail survey involved selecting a random sample of county residents from the local phone book. A random number generator was used to select one individual for the survey from each column of names from each page of the phone book. This resulted in a sample size of 1,100. The survey was mailed to each of these individuals followed by a reminder post card 14 days later. A total of 171 surveys were received for a response rate of 15.5%. For the total population of police department patrol officers and the total population of sheriff department employees, surveys were distributed to each employee with a cover letter from the respective chief or sheriff through departmental mail procedures. From the 250 surveys distributed to the police patrol officers, 99 or 39.6% were returned and from the 230 distributed to sheriff department employees, 122 or 53.0% were returned. Emergency medical service, fire department, and hospital employees at seven hospitals were surveyed by distribution through organizational procedures not in the control of project personnel. After permission to distribute the surveys was obtained by project staff, coalition members employed at each site worked out distribution and collection procedures as permitted by the site. Emergency room personnel were targeted at the hospitals. No method of accounting for how many surveys were actually distributed nor to whom they were distributed is available for these sites. The project received 45 surveys from the EMS/fire department and 201 from the hospitals. To generate responses from young adults, senior citizens, and poor residents, the project collected convenience samples from students entering the University Center, seniors coming to programs at senior citizen centers, and clients arriving at the waiting room of the public health clinic. These efforts resulted in 144 surveys from students, 119 from senior citizens, and 179 from health clinic clients. An additional 28 surveys were received from a local private school system where a coalition member distributed surveys to the teachers. These processes resulted in the collection of a total of 1,108 surveys. While only the first three sub-samples were collected with reasonably sound sampling procedures, the remainder adequately support the Coalition s desire to have the responses of specific groups of county citizens represented in the results. This report is based on the 144 surveys received from TAMU-CC students. A report for the total sample is available upon request. Here students are compared to the total sample when appropriate. 2

3 Findings for TAMU-CC Students Of the TAMU-CC students, 60.9% had received tickets for traffic violations in the last two years, while 39% had not. How many tickets, warnings, or discussions with police officers about traffic violations have you had in the past 2 years? (N=141) Percent None 39 One or or or more 3.5 This compares to 35.5% in the total sample, who reported receiving tickets. Given these numbers, a much larger portion of students reported receiving tickets than respondents in the total sample. The following table shows the statistically significant difference between the responses of the students for this question and all other respondents. While only 31.5% of the other respondents reported that they had received tickets, almost double that proportion (61%) of the students reported that they had received tickets in the past two years (Phi=.209, Contingency Coefficient=.204, p=.001). *Received traffic citations in the past 2 years % YES 31.5 Students Total sample, excluding students Phi=.209, Contingency Coefficient=.204, p=.001 The majority of students (72.5%) had not been involved in motor vehicle crashes in the past two years, while 27.3% had been in crashes. 3

4 How many motor vehicle crashes have you had during the past 2 years? (N=142) Percent None 72.5 One or more 0 This compares to 18.9% of the respondents in the total sample, who reported that they had been involved in crashes. It appears that more students are involved in crashes, than are respondents in the total sample. The following table shows the statistically significant difference between the responses of the students for this question and all other respondents. In the total sample (excluding the students), 17.5% reported that they had been in crashes, while 27.5% of the students reported that they had been in crashes in the past two years (Phi=.086, Contingency Coefficient=.086, p=.005). *Involved in Motor Vehicle Crashes in the past 2 years Students Total sample, excluding students 10 % YES Phi=.086, Contingency Coefficient=.086, p=.005 Within the sample of students, 72.5% had taken a driver safety course in the last six years. This compares to 54.5% in the total sample. A much larger percentage of students had taken a driver safety course in the last 6 years. How long ago was it that you last took a driving safety course? (N=142) Percent 1 year or less years years years or more 13.4 Never

5 SEATBELT USAGE When asked about seatbelt usage, 74.6% of the students reported that they always wear a seatbelt when driving. While driving, how often do you put on and buckle your safety belt? (N=142) Frequency Percent Always Very Often Often Almost Never Never In the total sample, 79.2% reported that they always wear a seatbelt when driving. Thus, a smaller portion of students reported that they always engage in this precautionary behavior. While driving, how often do you put on and buckle your seatbelt? Students Total sample 70 % Always Regarding children and seatbelts, 83.6% of the students reported that they always require children to wear a safety belt or be put in a safety seat. How often do you require that children be secured in a seat or safety belt? (N=140) Frequency Percent Always Very Often Often Almost Never Never

6 In the total sample, 88.2% of the respondents reported that they always require that children be secured. As seen in the chart, a smaller proportion of students reported that they always require seatbelt use. How often do you require that children be secured in a safety seat or seatbelt? % Always Students Total Sample As a passenger, 69.9% of the students reported that they always wear a seatbelt. While a passenger, how often do you put on and buckle your safety belt? (N=143) Frequency Percent Always Very often Often Almost Never Never 0 0 While in the total sample, 78.7% reported that they always wear a seatbelt as a passenger. The difference between these two numbers indicates that students report seatbelt usage as a passenger at lower rates. When comparing the students responses to all other respondents, a statistically significant difference is seen. While 80% of the total sample (excluding students) reported that they always wear their seatbelt as a passenger, 69.9% of the students reported that they always wear a seatbelt as a passenger (Phi=-.083, Contingency Coefficient=.082, p=.006). 6

7 *As a passenger, how often do you put on and buckle your seatbelt? % Always Students Total sample, excluding students Phi=-.083, Contingency Coefficient=.082, p=.006 PERCEPTION OF SAFETY Respondents were asked how safe they feel in various situations. The following table shows the results when these questions were asked of TAMU-CC students. How safe do you feel Very Safe Somewhat Safe Neutral Somewhat Unsafe Very Unsafe Alone, at local gas station 25.2% 53.8% 14.7% 6.3% 0% (N=143) Alone, at local bank or 29.9% 42.4% 18.1% 5.6% 4.2% ATM (N=144) Alone at job site (N=138) 55.8% 26.8% 14.5% 2.9% 0% Alone in community, 36.8% 41.7% 14.6% 6.9% 0% shopping (N=144) Driving in Corpus Christi 22.2% 31.3% 20.8% 20.1% 5.6% (N=144) Driving in Nueces County 19.0% 34.5% 28.9% 12.7% 4.9% (N=142) At centers of 20.6% 43.3% 22.0% 13.5% 0.7% entertainment (N=141) In downtown Corpus 11.2% 33.6% 29.4% 20.3% 5.6% Christi (N=143) Walking to car at night 21.7% 24.5% 18.9% 27.3% 7.7% (N=143) Alone in neighborhood, at night (N=144) 34.0% 25.7% 20.1% 18.8% 1.4% 7

8 At a gas station, 53.8% reported feeling somewhat safe and 25.2% reported feeling very safe. At an ATM or bank, 29.9% feel very safe and 42.4% feel somewhat safe. Alone at their job site, 55.8% feel very safe and 26.8% feel somewhat safe. When shopping in the community, 36.8% reported feeling very safe and 41.7% somewhat safe. When driving in Corpus Christi, 22.2% feel very safe, 31.3% feel somewhat safe, and 20.1% feel somewhat unsafe. When students are driving in Nueces County, 34.5% reported feeling somewhat safe. At centers of entertainment, 43.3% feel somewhat safe, while in downtown Corpus Christi, 33.6% feel somewhat safe and 20.3% feel somewhat unsafe. When they are walking to their vehicles at night, 21.7% of the surveyed students reported that they feel very safe, 24.5% somewhat safe and 27.3% somewhat unsafe. When alone in their neighborhoods at night, 34% feel very safe, 25.7% feel somewhat safe, and 18.8% reported feeling somewhat unsafe. Looking at the means for this set of questions, the situations where respondents feel the safest are at their job site (mean = 4.36) and shopping in the community (4.08). While overall they feel least safe in downtown (3.24) and walking to their cars at night (3.25). In the total sample of respondents, the highest perception of safety was also at one s job site, while the lowest was walking to one s car at night. Comparing the means for the students to the total sample of respondents, a number of differences can be seen. Students reported a significantly higher perception of safety at their job site, walking to their vehicles at night, at a bank or ATM and shopping in the community (Notice the asterisks placed next to these items). How safe do you feel MEANS TAMUCC Students Total Sample Alone, at local gas station Alone, at local bank or ATM* Alone, at job site* Alone, in community, shopping* Driving in Corpus Christi Driving in Nueces County At centers of entertainment In downtown Corpus Christi Walking to car at night* Alone, in neighborhood at night PERCEPTION OF CHILDREN S SAFETY A number of questions were asked regarding perception of children s safety. Of those respondents with children, 41.1% reported that they never allow their children to go door to door alone, while 33.9% responded not very often, 17.9% often and 7.1% very often. When asked how often they allow their children to play alone in the neighborhood, 25.5% responded never, 36.4% not very often, 29.1% often, and 9.1% very often. 8

9 When comparing these numbers to that of the total sample, 25% of the students replied that they very often or often allow their children to go door to door alone, while only 11.9% in the total sample reported that they allow this to occur. In regards to allowing children to play alone in the neighborhood, 38.2% replied that they either very often or often allow this to occur, while in the total sample, a much smaller proportion (20%) of the respondents gave these responses. How often do you / would you let your children (under the age of 12) Very Often Often Not Very Often Never Go door to door alone in 7.1% 17.9% 33.9% 41.1% neighborhood (N=56) Play in neighborhood alone (N=55) 9.1% 29.1% 36.4% 25.5% The following table shows the results of when respondents were asked about concern for children s safety in various situations. The means indicate that students were most concerned with children wandering off unsupervised (mean = 3.97) and least concerned with children riding a bicycle on the street (3.5). The total sample of 1,108 respondents also rated wandering off unsupervised as their highest concern. On a scale of one to five, how would you rank your concern for child safety (all children) in regards to: Most Least Concerned Concerned MEAN Drowning accident 37.1% 19.6% 23.8% 9.1% 10.5% 3.64 (N=143) Wandering off 44.8% 28.7% 11.2% 9.8% 5.6% 3.97 unsupervised (N=143) Kidnapping (N=141) 50.4% 15.6% 18.4% 7.8% 7.8% 3.93 Riding as a passenger in 24.8% 29.1% 26.2% 13.5% 6.4% 3.52 a car (N=141) Riding a bicycle on your 25.5% 27.7% 26.2% 12.8% 7.8% 3.50 street (N=141) Crossing the street (N=141) 30.5% 27.7% 21.3% 12.8% 7.8% 3.60 Respondents were also asked to rank the safety of their children in a number of public places. According to the means for this set of questions, the perceived safest of the seven locations is church (mean = 4.07). Parents rated the least safe place as the malls (3.09). In the total sample, respondents also perceived churches as the safest place, and they rated parks and malls as the least safe. 9

10 How would you rank the safety of your children in the following public places? Most Least MEAN safe safe Malls (N=139) 7.9% 30.2% 37.4% 12.2% 12.2% 3.09 Parks (N=137) 5.8% 32.1% 37.2% 18.2% 6.6% 3.12 Grocery store (N=135) 12.6% 40.0% 28.1% 17.0% 2.2% 3.44 Shopping centers (N=138) 7.2% 30.4% 38.4% 17.4% 6.5% 3.14 Movie theaters (N=135) 11.1% 37.0% 33.3% 12.6% 5.9% 3.35 Church (N=135) 55.6% 19.3% 8.1% 11.1% 5.9% 4.07 Schools (N=137) 18.2% 39.4% 25.5% 13.9% 2.9% 3.56 PERCEIVED RISK OF INJURY OR DEATH While driving in Nueces County, TAMU-CC students indicated that they perceive the greatest risk of injury or death from intoxicated drivers (mean = 4.28). For this set of questions, respondents were asked to choose from a five-point scale, where 5 indicated the greatest risk and 1 the least risk. Second to DWI, students rated speeding and inattentive drivers as the next riskiest (both means = 4.01). The total sample also rated DWI as the greatest risk and speeding as the next riskiest. While driving in Nueces County, how do you rate your risk of injury or death from the following? Motor vehicle crashes resulting from Means Wet roads (N=136) 3.57 Speeding (N=138) 4.01 Running traffic lights / signs (N=138) 3.99 Unsafe aggressive driving (N=139) 3.98 Inattentive drivers (N=138) 4.01 Improper lane changes (N=138) 3.55 DWI (N=138) 4.28 When asked to rate risk of injury from five causes, students rated motor vehicle crashes as the riskiest (mean = 3.91) and an accident at work as the least risky (2.4). The total sample also rated crashes as the highest risk, but recreational accidents as the least risky. In Nueces County, how do you rate your risk of injury or death from the following? Means Home accidents (N=142) 2.54 Violent crime (N=140) 3.39 Motor vehicle crashes (N=141) 3.91 Accident at work (N=140) 2.40 Recreational activities (N=141)

11 Within this sample, 67.9% rated motor vehicle crashes as the one greatest risk of injury or death. An accident at work was chosen by 0.7% of the students as the greatest risk, while 4.3% selected home accidents, 25% violent crime, and 2.1% recreational activities. A majority of the total sample of respondents (69.6%) also rated crashes as the one greatest risk. When asked which age group they believe creates the greatest risk of injury or death, 48.2% of the students replied the year old age group, while 29.8% replied the age group, 6.4% replied the age group, 0.7% replied the age group and 14.9% replied that the 66 and older age group creates the greatest risk. When the total sample was asked which age group they believe creates the greatest risk for motor vehicle crashes, the largest percentage (39.6%) responded year olds. DRIVER WORRY Four questions were asked concerning driver worry. When driving, 44.4% of the respondents reported that they are somewhat worried about being injured by someone speeding, while 31.1% are worried very much. Of the students surveyed, 50% indicated that they worry very much about being injured by someone running a red light, while 36.4% indicated that they worry somewhat in this situation. When asked about being injured by someone driving while intoxicated, 35.6% indicated that they worry very much about this situation and 60% worry somewhat. Being injured by someone doing other things while driving, very much worries 48.9% of the students surveyed, and somewhat worries 35.6% of the students. While driving a car, how much do you worry about being injured by someone Very Somewhat Neutral Not much Not at all much Speeding (N=144) 31.1% 44.4% 8.9% 15.6% 0% Running a red light (N=143) 50.0% 36.4% 11.4% 2.3% 0% Driving while intoxicated / 35.6% 60.0% 4.4% 0% 0% drunk (N=144) Doing other things (eating, reading, putting on makeup, etc.) (N=144) 48.9% 35.6% 13.3% 2.2% 0% Looking at the means for this set of questions, the highest amount of worry is associated with DWI (mean = 4.33). The total sample also indicated that they worry most about intoxicated drivers. While driving a car how much do you worry about being injured by someone MEANS Speeding 3.83 Running a red light 3.98 Driving while intoxicated / drunk 4.33 Doing other things

12 DRIVER BEHAVIOR Of the surveyed students, 48.6% indicated that everyday they see someone tailgating, while 34% see swerving everyday, 46.2% see unsafe lane changes, 38.9% see other drivers disobeying lights or signs, and 54.7% see aggressive driving everyday. For the total sample, everyday 51.8% see tailgating, 31.5% see swerving, 49.4% see unsafe lane changes, 44.4% see someone disobeying lights or signs, and 54.3% of the total respondents see aggressive driving each day. How often do you see someone driving in the following ways? Everyday Almost A few times Less than Never everyday a week once a week Tailgating (N=144) 48.6% 33.3% 14.6% 2.8% 0.7% Swerving (N=144) 34.0% 20.1% 31.9% 12.5% 1.4% Making unsafe lane 46.2% 29.4% 21.0% 3.5% 0% changes (N=143) Disobeying lights or signs 38.9% 32.6% 18.8% 9.7% 0% (N=144) Driving aggressive (N=139) 54.7% 33.8% 9.4% 2.2% 0% The means for this set of questions indicate that most often students see tailgating (mean = 4.26) and least often they see swerving (3.73). The findings from the total sample found aggressive driving as most common behavior and swerving as the least common behavior. How often do you see someone driving in the following ways? MEANS Tailgating 4.26 Swerving 3.73 Making unsafe lane changes 4.18 Disobeying lights or signs 4.01 Driving aggressive 4.41 Looking at the students own driving behavior, 34% reported that they never tailgate, 47.6% never swerve, 31.3% never make unsafe lane changes, 46.5% never disobey lights or signs and 32.6% never drive aggressively. Of the other respondents, 33.3% reported tailgating a few times a week or more often and 18.9% reported that they swerve a few times a week or more often. While 29.9% reported that they make unsafe lane changes at least a few times a week, 23% reported that they disobey lights or signs at least that often, and 38.9% reported that they drive aggressively a few times a week or more often. 12

13 How often do you drive in the following ways? Everyday Almost A few times Less than Never everyday a week once a week Tailgating (N=144) 6.3% 6.9% 20.1% 32.6% 34.0% Swerving (N=134) 2.1% 4.2% 12.6% 33.6% 47.6% Making unsafe lane 2.8% 9.7% 17.4% 38.9% 31.3% changes (N=) Disobeying lights/signs 2.1% 5.6% 15.3% 30.6% 46.5% (N=144) Driving aggressively (N=144) 9.7% 12.5% 16.7% 28.5% 32.6% For each of these five driving behaviors, students gave the never response at significantly lower percentages, when compared to the total sample. While 34% of the students replied that they never tailgate, 53.7% of the total sample gave this response. When asked how often they swerve, 47.6% of the students replied never and 64.5% of the total sample replied never. While only 31.3% of the students reported that they never make unsafe lane changes, 51.6% of the total sample gave this response. The percentage reporting never disobeying lights or signs also differed (46.5% compared to 65.3% in the total sample), as did the percentages reporting never driving aggressively (32.6% compared to 53.3% in the total sample.) Looking at the means for this set of questions, most often drivers reported driving aggressively (mean = 2.38), and least often swerving (1.8). In the total sample, the respondents also indicated that most often they drive aggressively. When comparing the means for the students responses to that of the total sample, it is noticeable that the means for the student are higher for each driving behavior. Thus, students report engaging in each of these risky driving behaviors more frequently than do the total sample of respondents. How often do you drive in the following ways? MEANS Students Total Sample Tailgating Swerving Making unsafe lane changes Disobeying lights or signs Driving aggressive While 41% of the students reported that they never get mad and retaliate against bad drivers, 29.2% reported that they almost never retaliate, and 30% reported that they always, very often or often retaliate. At traffic lights, 8.3% reported that they never get impatient, while 38.9% reported almost never, 27.8% reported often, and 25% reported always or often. When a car ahead of them slows down, 5.6% of the students surveyed reported that they never get impatient, while 36.8% reported almost never, 27.1% reported often, and 30.6% reported either always or often. When asked whether they yell or gesture at other drivers, 40.7% of the students replied never, 30.7% replied almost never, and 28.6% replied often, very often or always. 13

14 Looking at the total sample, 48.3% reported that they never retaliate, 18.8% never get impatient at lights, 13% never get impatient when a car ahead of them slows down, and 54.3% never yell or gesture at other drivers. When comparing these numbers to those of the students, it is noticeable that a smaller portion of students reported that they never retaliate and also a smaller portion reported that they never yell or gesture. How often do you Always Very Often Almost Never Often Never Get mad and retaliate against bad 5.6% 6.3% 18.1% 29.2% 41.0% drivers (N=144) Get impatient at traffic lights 8.3% 16.7% 27.8% 38.9% 8.3% (N=144) Get impatient when a car ahead 12.5% 18.1% 27.1% 36.8% 5.6% slows down (N=144) Yell or gesture at other drivers (N=140) 5.0% 7.9% 15.7% 30.7% 40.7% The means for this set of questions, shows that getting impatient when a car ahead of them slows down is the most common of these four behaviors (mean = 2.95). As well, the means for the total sample indicate that impatience when a car ahead slows down is most common. Also notice that the means for the students are higher than that of the total sample, indicating that students report these behaviors more frequently. How often do you MEANS Students Total Sample Get mad and retaliate Get impatient at lights Get impatient when car ahead slows Yell or gesture at other drivers In the past month, 82% of the surveyed students reported that they had driven above the speed limit, while 49.6% had driven through a traffic signal after it turned red, 30% had driven after consuming alcohol, and 9.3% of the students had driven after taking mind-altering drugs. Have you driven in the past month YES Above the posted speed limit 82.0% (N=139) Through a traffic signal after 49.6% it turned red (N=139) After consuming alcoholic 30.0% beverages (N=140) After taking drugs (other 9.3% than alcohol) (N=140) 14

15 For the total sample of 1,108 respondents, 73.7% reported that they had driven above the speed limit in the last month, 35.5% had driven through a red signal, 22.6% had driven after consuming alcohol, and 4.5% had driven after taking drugs in the past month. Students reported driving through a red signal at much greater numbers than did the total sample of respondents (49.6% compared to 35.5% in the total sample). The following table illustrates the statistically significant difference between the responses of the students and all other respondents for the question concerning driving after consuming alcohol in the past month. While 21.5% of the total sample (excluding the students) reported that they had driven after consuming alcohol in the past month, 30% of the students reported that they had engaged in this risky and unsafe behavior (Phi=.068, Contingency Coefficient=.068, p=.025). *Have you driven after consuming alcoholic beverages? % Month Students Total sample, excluding students Phi=.068, Contingency Coefficient=.068, p=.025 In the past week, 71.5% of the students admitted that they had driven above the speed limit, 21.9% had driven through a red signal, 12.6% had driven after consuming alcohol, and 8.6% had driven after taking drugs. This compares to the total sample, where in the past week, 62% had driven above the speed limit, 15.1% had driven through a red signal, 9.3% had driven after consuming alcohol, and 3.6% had driven after taking drugs. Have you driven in the past week YES Above the posted speed limit 71.5% (N=130) Through a traffic signal after 21.9% it turned red (N=128) After consuming alcoholic 12.6% beverages (N=127) After taking drugs (other than 8.6% alcohol) (N=128) 15

16 PERCEIVED CAUSES OF MOTOR VEHICLE CRASHES Respondents were asked how likely nine driving behaviors are to cause motor vehicle crashes involving injury or death. Of the surveyed students, 51.1% indicated that becoming sleepy or tired while driving is very likely to cause a motor vehicle crash and 22.7% reported that getting angry at other drivers is very likely to cause crashes. Concerning tailgating or following too closely to other drivers, 37.1% responded that it is very likely to cause crashes. Of the respondents, 25% reported that arguing with passengers is very likely to cause a crash, while 27.7% feel that making an improper turn is very likely to cause a crash, and 40% reported that passing in a no passing zone is very likely to cause a motor vehicle crash. Disregarding a stop sign or light was reported to be very likely to cause a crash by 58.6% of the students surveyed, while speeding was reported to be very likely to cause a crash by 36.5% of the students. Of the students, 53.2% reported that failing to yield right of way to another vehicle is very likely to cause a crash involving death or injuries. How likely is it for the following behaviors to cause a motor vehicle crash with injuries or death? Very Likely Somewhat likely Neutral Not very likely Not at all likely Becoming sleepy or tired 51.1% 36.2% 10.6% 2.1% 0% (N=141) Getting angry at other drivers 22.7% 45.4% 24.1% 5.7% 2.1% (N=141) Tailgating or following too 37.1% 40.7% 16.4% 4.3% 1.4% closely (N=140) Arguing with passengers in 25.0% 38.6% 23.6% 10.7% 2.1% car (N=140) Making an improper turn 27.7% 42.6% 22.0% 5.7% 2.1% (N=141) Passing in a no passing zone 40.0% 39.3% 13.6% 5.0% 2.1% (N=140) Disregarding stop sign / traffic 58.6% 30.7% 6.4% 3.6% 0.7% light (N=140) Speeding (N=137) 36.5% 35.0% 19.0% 6.6% 2.9% Failing to yield right of way to other vehicle (N=139) 53.2% 35.3% 7.9% 2.2% 1.4% Looking specifically at the means for this set of questions, the driving behavior that is perceived to most likely cause a motor vehicle crash is disregarding a stop sign or light (mean = 4.43), followed by failing to yield right of way (4.37) and becoming sleepy or tired (4.36). For the total sample, becoming sleepy or tired was rated highest, and disregarding a stop sign or light was the second highest. 16

17 How likely is it for the following behaviors to cause a motor vehicle crash with injuries or death? MEANS Becoming sleepy or tired 4.36 Getting angry at other drivers 3.81 Tailgating or following too closely 4.08 Arguing with passengers in your car 3.74 Making an improper turn 3.88 Passing in a no passing zone 4.10 Disregarding a stop sign / traffic light 4.43 Speeding 3.96 Failing to yield right of way to other vehicle 4.37 Increased rush hour traffic is perceived to be very important as a cause of motor vehicle crashes by 40.3% of the surveyed students, while intersection design problems were seen as a very important issue by 45.7% of the students. When asked about holes or ruts in the pavement, 25% of the students surveyed considered this a very important issue, while an animal on the roadway was considered a very important issue by 25.9% of the respondents, and an object on the roadway was considered a very important issue by 28.8% of the respondents. A slippery wet road was considered a very important issue by 34.3% of the respondents, and an automobile defect was seen as a very important issue by 23.9% of the respondents. Roadway construction was seen as very important as a cause of motor vehicle crashes, by 25.7% of the students surveyed. How important are the following environmental issues as causes of motor vehicle crashes with injury or death? Very Important Somewhat Important Neutral Not Very Important Not at all Important Increased Rush hour 40.3% 41.0% 15.1% 1.4% 2.2% traffic (N=139) Intersection design 45.7% 35.7% 16.4% 2.1% 0% problems (N=140) Holes or ruts in pavement 25.0% 41.9% 22.1% 11.0% 0% (N=136) Animal on roadway 25.9% 28.8% 33.1% 10.8% 1.4% (N=139) Object on roadway 28.8% 33.8% 28.8% 7.2% 1.4% (N=139) Slippery, wet roadway 34.3% 40.7% 16.4% 5.0% 3.6% (N=140) Automobile defect 23.9% 41.3% 21.0% 10.9% 2.9% (N=138) Roadway construction (N=140) 25.7% 39.3% 24.3% 10.7% 0% The means for this set of questions indicate that students reported that intersection design problems (mean = 4.25) and rush hour traffic (4.16) are the most important 17

18 environmental issues. Respondents rated an animal on the roadway as the least important of the eight issues (3.67). The total sample rated rush hour traffic as the most important issue and an animal in the roadway as the least important issue. How important are the following environmental issues as causes of motor vehicle crashes with injury or death? MEANS Increased rush hour traffic in Nueces County 4.16 Intersection design problems 4.25 Holes or ruts in pavement 3.81 Animal on roadway 3.67 Object on roadway 3.81 Slippery, wet roadway 3.97 Automobile defect 3.72 Roadway construction 3.80 FIREARM OWNERSHIP AND STORAGE When students were asked if they own a firearm, 21.1% replied yes. Of these, 56.7% own a handgun. 73.3% own a rifle, and 56.7% own a shotgun. When asked if their firearms are equipped with trigger locks, 42.2% replied no, and 33.3% replied that they do not store their firearms under lock and key. For the total sample, 42.8% of the respondents own firearms. The majority of these (81.5%) own at least one handgun, while 56.8% own a shotgun, and 54.8% own a rifle. When asked if their firearms are equipped with trigger locks, 65.7% responded no, while 46.7% indicated that their firearms are not stored under lock and key. The following two charts illustrate the responses on the firearm storage questions. The first one shows the statistically significant difference between the responses of the students and those of the other respondents concerning the trigger lock question. *Are your firearms equipped with trigger locks? % No Students Total sample, excluding students Phi=.153, Contingency Coefficient=.152, p=

19 While 67.9% of the total respondents reported that their firearms are not equipped with trigger locks, 42.2% of the students reported that their firearms are not equipped with trigger locks (Phi=.153, Contingency Coefficient=.152, p=.001). Thus, a larger proportion of students reported that they do have trigger locks on their firearms. The following chart illustrates the difference between the responses of the total sample and the students for the question concerning firearm storage. As can be seen, 46.7% of the total sample reported that their firearms are not stored under lock and key, while 33.3% of the students reported that their firearms are not stored under lock and key. Thus, a larger percentage of students report storing their firearms under lock and key. Even though a larger proportion of students reported safe firearm storage, the number that reported that they do not take this precautionary measure, represents one third of the surveyed students. Do you tend to store firearms under lock and key? Students Total Sample % No BICYCLE SAFETY When asked how often they ride a bicycle, 45.2% of the students responded never, 33.3% replied almost never, 14.8% often, 5.2% very often, and 1.5% always. When asked about helmet use, 64.3% of those who ride bicycles responded that they never wear helmets, while 17.1% replied almost never, 4.3% often, 2.9% very often, and 11.4% always. Of the respondents, 50.8% were correct in answering that wearing a helmet reduces the probability of head injury by 70%. When asked which set of laws bicycle riders in Texas must adhere to, 70.2% were correct in answering motor vehicle laws. For the total sample, 57.1% of the bicycle riders never wear a helmet, while 20.6% always wear a helmet. In regards to the knowledge questions, 58.4% were correct in answering that helmets reduce the chance of injury by 70%, and 73.3% were correct in that bicycle riders must adhere to motor vehicle safety laws. When comparing the responses of the students to the total sample for this set of questions, a few differences can be seen. A larger proportion of the students reported that 19

20 they never wear helmets (64.3% compared to 57.1% in the total sample), and a smaller percentage reported that they always wear a helmet (11.4% compared to 20.6% in the total sample). A smaller percentage of students knew that helmet use reduces the chance of injury by 70% (50.8% compared to 58.4% in the total sample). SAFETY KNOWLEDGE When asked what the legal limit for alcohol concentration in the blood is while driving in Texas, 62.1% were correct in answering.08. Respondents were also asked how chemicals, medicines, and cleansers should be stored in homes with children. Of the TAMU-CC students, 72% were correct in answering in a locked cabinet. Respondents were asked what age Texas law requires that child passengers be restrained up to. Of the students, 12.9% were correct in responding age 14. For the total sample, 60.6% gave the correct BAC, and 75.2% gave the correct response for chemical storage. When asked about child passengers in the back seat, 15.8% were correct in answering 14 years of age. The following table shows the difference between the responses of the total sample and the students for the question concerning knowledge of child restraint laws. Child passenger restraint required through age 14 in backseat Students Total Sample % Correct The Safe Communities Project staff and the Safe Communities Coalition hope that the information provided in this report is helpful to you. The information in the report may provide you with ways to improve the safety knowledge and behavior of your employees. Hopefully, with your assistance, Nueces County and Corpus Christi can become safer places to live. You may want to share this information with your safety coordinator, training staff, or others. Please, feel free to duplicate this report as you choose. 20