Instructions:
Indicate the person’s use of safety/restraint equipment (or the helmet use by a motorcyclist) at the time of the crash.
Definition:
The restraint/safety equipment in use by a person, passenger or vulnerable user, or the helmet used by a motorcyclist at the time of the crash.
Rationale:
Proper classification of the use of available occupant restraint systems and helmet use is vital to evaluating the effectiveness of such equipment.
| Code | Attribute | Definition | Example |
| 6 | Helmet | Safety helmet worn by vulnerable user (bicyclist, skateboarder, etc.). |  |
| 7 | Protective Pads (Elbows, Knees, Etc.) | Padded, shaped attachments were used by the vulnerable user to protect specific areas of the body (elbows, knees, shins, etc.). |  |
| 8 | Reflective Clothing | Wearable items that reflect light and also return most of that reflection back along the path of the incoming light. |  |
| 9 | Lighting | Vulnerable user use of lights as safety equipment on his/her person, on a motor vehicle not in transport, or on transport vehicles other than a motor vehicle. |  |
| 10 | Other | This attribute is used when some other type of restraint, not described in the previous attributes, was being used at the time of the crash. (e.g. a person restrained in a wheelchair). This would not apply to motorcycle occupants. If this attribute is used, an explanation in the narrative is recommended. |  |
| 99 | Unknown | If this attribute is used, an explanation in the narrative is recommended. |
Reminder!
If no safety system was used, please record code 0 (None Used).
In situations where a vehicle is parked and the person is not present or a hit/run, the person last name may be entered as UNKNOWN or PARKED, and then this field is exempt and may be left empty.
FAQ
Does this field still apply to a walking pedestrian?
Yes. Fields 0, 8, 9, or 10 may apply.
Accuracy Checks
- If the Vehicle Configuration Code indicates ‘motorcycle’ or ‘moped’, then the only applicable Safety System Used would be ‘helmet’ or ‘unknown’.
- Safety System Used codes of ‘helmet’, ‘protective pads’, ‘reflective clothing’, ‘lighting’, and ‘other’ are only to be used on vulnerable user person records.
Data Quality Audit Results
| Person | ||||
| Report Type | Complete | Incomplete | ||
| Local Police (electronic) | 574 | 96.5% | 21 | 3.5% |
| Local Police (paper) | 551 | 90.0% | 61 | 10.0% |
| State Police (electronic) | 514 | 82.6% | 108 | 17.4% |
| Total | 1639 | 89.6% | 190 | 10.4% |
| Passenger | ||||
| Report Type | Complete | Incomplete | ||
| Local Police (electronic) | 119 | 95.2% | 6 | 4.8% |
| Local Police (paper) | 139 | 93.3% | 10 | 6.7% |
| State Police (electronic) | 55 | 61.8% | 34 | 38.2% |
| Total | 313 | 86.2% | 50 | 13.8% |
| Vulnerable User | ||||
| Report Type | Complete | Incomplete | ||
| Local Police (electronic) | 4 | 21.1% | 15 | 78.9% |
| Local Police (paper) | 5 | 35.7% | 9 | 64.3% |
| State Police (electronic) | 1 | 33.3% | 2 | 66.7% |
| Total | 10 | 27.8% | 26 | 72.2% |
Person Safety System Used was found to be complete in 90 percent of the reports reviewed, which is a decrease from the 2005 audit findings (from 95 percent). Although both submittal types for local police had a percent completed rate in the 90s, reports submitted by the State Police had a slightly lower rate, at just over 82 percent. In instances where this field is completed, auditors commented that it is often unverified. Furthermore, there were a number of instances where the collision involved a parked vehicle or a hit and run crash and would not be applicable. Passenger Safety System Used is a field that was completed for 86 percent of the reports reviewed. Similar to other fields in this section, State Police had the highest percentage of reports deemed incomplete, with about 38 percent. This was true for most passenger fields in this section of the crash report. Some auditors indicated if there were no passenger injuries, this section was often left incomplete. The Vulnerable User Safety System Used field was only found to be complete in 28 percent of the reports reviewed (10 of 36). Local police electronic submissions were incomplete most often (15 of 19) with local police paper submissions incomplete 63 percent of the time (9 of 14), and State Police electronic submissions incomplete 67 percent (2 of 3) of the time.