-79-60
MICHIGAN UM-HSRI PUBLIC OPINION TOWARD MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTION
Arthur C. Wolfe
September 1979
Highway Safety Research I n s t i t u t e The University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 Prepared under Contract MVI-79-001 A from the Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning
1.
R q r t no.
2.
Cloremmmt Accessron No.
3.
Rec~prmt's Coral09 No.
UM-HSRI-79-60
4.
Tltlo
ad
Subtrtla
5. R.port Oote
Michigan Pub1 i c Opinion Toward Motor Vehicle Inspection Arthur C. Wl fe o Highway Safety Research Institute The University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109
12. $ a ~ s o r r nA m r N ~
September 1979
6. Pwfomrng Orponr .otron coda
8. P u f o m n g Orgonrxution R.port No. 7. Auhor's)
UM-HSRI-79-60
10. Wor4 U n ~ No. (TRAIS) t
11. tontroct of Cfont NO.
9. P w h t n g O r g m ~ x o H m Nomo m d Address
MVI-79-001A
'3w m d Address
TYP* of R.port und Pmr~od Covered
Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning 7150 Harris Drive Lansing, Michigan 4891 3
I S . Suppl-tq
Notes
Final May-August 1979
14. $onsorrnO Agency Code
To a s s i s t the Michigan Department o f Transportation in developing plans for a s t a t e motor vehicle inspection program, the Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning sponsored a state-wide publ i c opinion survey of Michigan drivers conducted by The University of Michigan Highway Safety Research Institute. A sample of 999 drivers was contacted by telephone or mail between My and August 1979, and an 86% response rate was obtained a from the avai 1able respondents. The questionnaire focussed particularly on emissions inspection, and a sl i g h t plural i ty of the sample (47.9%) said they were in favor of an emissions inspection program. Much 1 arger proportions of the sample were in favor of safety inspection (81%),noise inspection (67X), and a combined safety and emissions inspection (73%). More than half of the respondents preferred that any inspection program be paid for by other s t a t e funds, and majorities in a1 1 parts of the s t a t e thought that an emissions inspection program should be statewide i f i t were set u p . Complete survey resul t s are i ncl uded i n the report. Appendices include 45 tables, a narrative 1 isting of interesting respondent comments, copies of the questionnaires and respondent 1 etters , and some methodological notes.
17. K q
Words
16.
Abstract
18.
Diskrbuhm S i o t m m t
Emissions inspection; safety inspection; noise inspection; Michigan pub1 i c opinions; survey methods
19. kcunty Classrf. (of this n+rc)
Unlimited
21. No. of Poges
2. k c w l t y Classti. (el h i s poq.4
22. P r ~ c e
Unclassified
Unclassified
120
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Highway Safety Research Institute i s indebted t o the State of Michigan for i t s sponsorship of this study and in particular t o Susan Mortel of the Department of Transportation and t o Max Pinkney of the Office of Highway Safety Planning for their great help in planning and carrying o u t the survey. The assistance of John Scott and Jacqueline Thorsby of the Institute for Social Research in making available six experienced telephone interviewers i s a1 so grateful ly acknowledged. These were Joyce M . Johnson, Virginia M. Whi ttington, Peggy A. Price, Alberta M. O'Day, Mary Jane Stacy, and Eddlene F. Statfield. Much of the success of this survey i s due t o their hard work and perseverence. Special thanks are also due t o HSRI Research Associates Thipi tai Chirachavala and Phyll i s Thorburn for assistance throughout the conduct of the survey and t o Michelle Shepherd and Suzann Roberts for general assistance and for typing this report. The assistance of Douglas Barnett of the U-M Mail Service in hand1 ing the business reply and metered envelopes for the return envelope experiment i s a1 so much appreciated.
TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii ........................ v 1 . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2 . SURVEY METHODOLOGY
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
3
.
SURVEY FINDINGS 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 General A i r P o l l u t i o n A t t i t u d e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 D e t a i l s o f an Emissions I n s p e c t i o n Program . . . . . . . . 9
13 16 18 20
....................... Noise and D i a g n o s t i c I n s p e c t i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . D r i v e r s , Vehicles. and Maintenance P r a c t i c e s . . . . . .
S a f e t y I n s p e c t i o n and Combined .Emissions S a f e t y Inspection
4
. .
CONCLUSION REFERENCES
..........................
5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
23
APPENDICES
............................
A . Tables f o r Survey F i n d i n g s
B . Respondent Comments on I n s p e c t i o n Programs
C
. The Telephone Q u e s t i o n n a i r e and Respondent L e t t e r D . The Mai 1 Q u e s t i o n n a i r e and Respondent L e t t e r s E . F u r t h e r Method01 o g i c a l Notes Survey O p e r a t i o n a l Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Telephone Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
M a i l Survey Response Rates The The The
El E3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E9 Return Envelope Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E9 Rep1 acement Quest i onnai r e Experiment . . . . . . . . . E l 4 Second Follow-up M a i l i n g w i t h C e r t i f i e d L e t t e r s . . . . E l 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
To a s s i s t the Michigan Department of Transportation in developi n g plans for a motor vehicle inspection program in Michigan, the Highway Safety Research Institute of The University of Michigan conducted a statewide telephone and mail survey of 999 drivers licensed in February 1979. A total of 826 complete or partial questionnaires were obtained from the s t i l l eligible respondents (not i l l or moved away, e t c . ) , for an unusually high 86% response rate. The question of greatest interest in this survey concerned publ i c opinion toward a motor vehicle emissions inspection program, and i t turned out that slightly more than half of the respondents who had an opinion on this question were favorable toward an emissions inspection program in their counties, a1 though about one-third were strongiy opposed. A much 1 arger proportion, 83%,were in favor of a safety inspection program, and when asked about combining a safety and emissions inspection program more than three-fourths were favorable to such a combined program. Similar large majorities said they were in favor of vehicle noise inspections and of state-operated motor vehicle diagnostic centers. So majority publ i c sentiment seems favorable t o a s t a t e vehicle inspection program, b u t i t i s more favorable t o safety and noise inspections than to emissions inspect i ons. Regarding the details of an emissions inspection program, i f i t were establ ished, publ i c opinion was general ly somewhat divided. Almost two-thirds of those expressing an opinion preferred a no-fee program paid for by other s t a t e funds, and more than half s t i l l preferred no inspection fee i f emissions and safety inspections were combined. These proportions were f a i r l y similar for both those in favor of and opposed t o an emissions inspection program. There was a slight preference for inspection by licensed private garages and service stations rather than by s t a t e stations, although on another question the publ i c expressed greater t r u s t in s t a t e inspectors than in private inspectors as f a r as doing a proper
,
.
emissions t e s t . Almost two-thirds of the respondents f e l t that if such an inspection program was set up i t should be required statewide and not only in the worst pollution areas. Majority sentiment in favor of a statewide program was expressed in a1 1 geographic areas of the state. The question which found the least division of opinion concerned the inclusion of buses and large trucks in an emissions inspection program, with 90% favoring such inclusion. More than ha1 f favored exempting 01 der vehicles from high-cost repairs, and close t o half were favorable t o a special s t a t e fund t o help motorists who couldn't afford to make required repairs. Thus, in general, Michigan drivers seem favorable disposed toward a statewide vehicle inspection program, especially i f i t includes safety and noise inspection as well as emissions inspection. They tend to t r u s t s t a t e inspectors more than private inspectors, b u t many fear that s t a t e inspection stations would be less convenient and more costly than 1 icensing existing private facil i t i e s . Not surprisingly, a majority would prefer t o have inspection costs come from other s t a t e funds rather than directly o u t of their own pockets, b u t probably a reasonable fee could be charged without directly arousing pub1 i c opposition.
1 . INTRODUCTION
Michigan i s facing a mandate by the federal Environmental Protection Agency ( E P A ) t o establish a program of periodic motor vehicle emissions inspections by 1982, a t least in the Detroit urban area and perhaps in other urban areas which may n o t meet the a i r pollution standards s e t by the EPA. The purpose of such an inspection program i s t o ensure that, a t least periodically, each motor vehicle will be operating within a specified tolerance of the ideal emissions level for vehicles of that model and model year. EPA estimates that a 25% reduction in motor vehicle emissions may be achieved by such a mandatory i nspection and maintenance program. Also for a number of years, Michigan has been under pressure from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to join the majority of states which have a mandatory periodic inspection program for the safety components of motor vehicles. I n addition, Michigan has recently passed legislation regarding a1 lowable motor vehicle noise levels, and there has been discussion of using a s t a t e inspection program as one means of enforcing these noise rules. Accordingly, the Michigan Department of Transportation, specifically the Social and Economic Studies Section in the Bureau of Planning, i s taking responsi bi 1i t y for studying various types of motor vehicle inspection programs and developing draft legislation for considerati on by the Michigan Senate and House of Representatives. The Social and Economic Studies Section has been aided in t h i s process by contracting with a private research organization and by setting u p a statewide Advisory Committee representing many organizations with diverse views on vehicle emissions inspections. Also, in order t o obtain broader public input into the planning process, The University of Michigan Highway Safety Research Institute (HSRI) was asked t o carry o u t a statewide public opinion
survey concerning motor vehicle emissions , safety, and noise inspections. This telephone and mail survey was supported financially by the Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning. The remainder of this report describes the methods and findings of this survey which was carried out from My t o August 1979. a Five appendices contain the detai 1 ed tables showing the survey results for each questionnaire i tem; some narrative comments made by respondents concerning inspections ; copies of the telephone and mail questionnaires; and some additional notes on the survey methodology.
2.
SURVEY METHODOLOGY
I t was decided that a sample of Michigan 1 icensed drivers would be appropriate for representing Michigan pub1 i c opinion on motor vehicle inspections. The Department of State kindly furnished the names and addresses of a one-fortieth sample of new and renewal 1 icense applicants during one week in February 1979. Using the records of one recent week had the advantage of providing f a i r l y upto-date addresses. I t had the slight disadvantage that drivers aged 16, 20, 22, 25, 28, etc. were somewhat overrepresented in the sample, b u t i t was f e l t that this would n o t seriously limit the overall representativeness of the sample. The original sample contained 1024 names and addresses and 25 o f these were randomly deleted t o make a total sample size of 999.
This 1 i s t was assigned case identification numbers from 001 to 999, and i t was then divided into two groups: a telephone sample of 699 ( l a s t digits of 0, 2, 3 , 4, 5, 8 , 9) and a mail-only sample of 300 ( l a s t digits of 1 , 6 , 7 ) . B consulting telephone directories y and directory assistance services telephone numbers were obtained for 433, or 61.9% of the 699 drivers in the telephone sample. There were 111 drivers for whom telephone numbers were not available because their telephones were "unlisted" ( 1 5.9% of the telephone sample, 20.4% of the sample for whom some information was available), leaving 155 drivers (22.23) for whom no telephone information was avai 1able. The 433 potenti a1 telephone respondents were mai 1 ed l e t t e r s signed by the Michigan Director of Transportation informing them of their desired participation in the telephone survey on May 8, 1 1 , 21, or 30; and the actual interviewing took place between May 11 and early July. A total of 369 telephone interviews were successfully carried o u t (85.2%) and there were only 23 refusals. Also, eight
respondents were too i l l or otherwise incapabl e (language difficulty, hard of hearing, retardation, e t c . ) t o participate. The remaining 32 were nonreachable because they were away ( 5 ) , or the telephone number was disconnected ( 22, including 6 who had changed t o unpublished numbers), or the telephone number was never answered ( 5 , including one attempted 43 times).
On June 27 the 330 non-interviewed members of the original telephone sample (64 for whom a telephone number had been obtained and 266 for whom no telephone number was available), plus the 300 drivers in the mail only sample were sent an 8-page mail questionnaire with a cover l e t t e r signed by the Director of Transportation. This nailing was followed six days later with a reminder postcard t o all respondents signed by the HSRI Project Director. On July 18, a second reminder mailing was made from the HSRI Project Director t o non-respondents with replacement questionnaires and stamped return envelopes included in about one-third of the l e t t e r s . A third follow-up mailing was made on August 2-3 t o a11 non-respondents by certified mail (806 per l e t t e r in addition t o f i r s t class postage), all including a replacement 1 e t t e r and stamped return envelope. All mailings were 1 i g t ~ tenough in weight t o use 154 postage.
A total of 458 mai 1 questionnaires were returned, including two in which the case identification number was crossed o u t or cut off. This included 13 from the 23 telephone refusals, and 22 from the 41 telephone respondents who had been i 11 , disconnected, away, etc. A total of 42 l e t t e r s were returned by the post office as nonforwardable or as unclaimed certified l e t t e r s , so the total eligible mail sample was reduced from 630 t o 588. Thus the overall mail response rate was 77.9%, and for the 300 drivers i n the mail only sample the response rate was 80.1%. All told, 827 interviews and questionnai res were recei ved ( 6 only parti a1 ly compl eted) for an unusually h i g h overall telephone and mail response rate o f 86.4%. A m i g h t be expected, the response rate was somewhat below s average in Wayne County (82.7%) and even lower for Detroit addresses specifically (77.5%),while i t was well above average in Oakland and Macomb Counties (89.9%). B u t these small geographic variations
..
in response rate do not seem sufficient t o obviate the overall statewide representativeness of the total sample. With this high response rate i t seems reasonable t o expect very l i t t l e non-response bias in the survey results. Naturally, one expects normal sampling "error" because no sample will represent the full population with absolute accuracy. The following table shows estimates of the sampling error for various percentages for different sample a n d subsample sizes a t a 95% level of confidence. This indicates, for example, t h a t the survey finding of 47.9% of 812 respondents in favor of an emissions testing program has a sampling error of about 3.5; t h a t i s , t h a t the chances are 19 o u t of 20 t h a t the true percentage in the total driving population l i e s within the range 47.9% plus or minus 3.5% (thus between 44.4% and 51.4%). Simil a r l y , one can use the table t o determine t h a t the finding of 39.4% strong opposition t o emissi ons testing among 104 respondents in the most rural counties has a sampling error or "confidence limit" of about 9.8. Thus the true percentage has a 95% probability of being within the range from 29.6% t o 49.2%.
TABLE 2.1 SAMPLING ERRORS FOR VARIOUS PERCENTAGES AND SAMPLE SIZES
Sample or Subsample Size Approximate Percentages 820
1
400
1
250
1
200
1
150
1
loo
1
50
If one wishes t o compare two percentages from two subsamples t o see i f they have significantly different opinions, one can use the values in Table 2.1 mu1 tiplied by the square root of two (1.414). For example, on Question 6 42.7% of the male respondents and 34.6%
of the female respondents said they preferred state-operated inspection stations t o state-1 icensed private garages. To see i f this difference of 8.2% i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant, one multiplies the 4.90 sampling error for percentages around 40% with sample sizes around 400 by 1.414. The result, 6 . 9 , i s less than the difference, 8.2, so one can say with 95% confidence t h a t female drivers are less in favor of s t a t e inspection stations than male drivers.
3.
S R E FINDINGS U VY
The following report i s based on replies from 821 respondents. Subsequent t o the computer runs, five more questionnai res were received, and probably a few more will d r i f t in during the fa1 1. Certainly the most relevant question in the survey was Question 4 which, a f t e r a f a i r l y lengthy introduction, asked respondents i f they "favor or oppose a required emissions inspection program" in their county. The final t a l l y showed a s l i g h t plurality in favor of a required vehicle emissions inspection program in the respondent's home s county. A can be seen in Table 4 of Appendix A , 31 .O% were strongly in favor, 16.9% were n o t very strongly in favor (47.9% together), 12.0% were not very strongly opposed, 30.9% were strongly opposed (42.9% together), 1 . 4 % said their answer depended on something, and 7.8% had no opinion. Support was stronger among women than among men (50.5% - 45.6%--in f a c t , a plural i ty of men respondents [48%]were opposed). Also, support was stronger among younger respondents with almost ha1 f of the respondents over 34 years of age indicating opposition while well over half of those 16-34 (60.8% of those 16-24) were in favor. Looking geographically, support was greatest in the six most populous counties and was least in the outstate areas, b u t there was b o t h substantial support and substantial opposition in every area of the s t a t e . There i s no indication of very large rural-urban differences in opinion on this issue. Looking a t income levels, there was somewhat less support in the lowest income group b u t no large differences by income 1 eve1
.
3.1 GENERAL AIR POLLUTION ATTITUDES A an introductory question respondents were asked i f they had s "personally ever been bothered by a i r pollution" in t h e i r home counties. Somewhat surprisingly only 36% said "yes" (Table 1 in Appendix A ) , and
only 5% said they had been bothered a l o t in the past year. Again, younger people, women, and Wayne County residents were more 1i kely t o have been bothered (58% in Wayne County, 10% a l o t ) , b u t even in the most rural counties, 21% said they had been bothered by a i r pollution in their county a t some time. Those strongly in favor of emissions inspections were more 1 i kely to have been bothered by a i r pol 1 ution (48% --lo% a l o t ) , b u t 30% of those strongly opposed also said they had been bothered. Some of these added comments indicating that more should be done t o stop the big stationary sources of pollution rather than worrying about vehicle emissions so much (see Appendix B ) . When asked their sense of the geographic spread of a i r pol lution problems in Michigan (Question 2 ) , only 3% claimed i t was a serious problem nowhere, However, 53% f e l t i t was a serious problem in only a few big c i t i e s , while 21% said i t was a serious problem throughout southern Michigan, and 13%said i t was a serious problem a1 1 over the s t a t e (Tab1e 2 ) . Again, younger people and female respondents were more likely to consider i t a serious problem statewide, b u t there were few differences by area of residence. Not surprisingly, those in favor of emissions inspection were more likely t o see a i r pollution as a serious problem statewide (24% of those strongly in favor). When asked how they f e l t about a law prohibiting motorists from using regular gas in cars designed for no-lead gas (Question 3 ) , 50% said they were in favor, 36%were opposed, and 14% had no opinion (Table 3). However, only 38% of those in the lowest income group supported such legislation. A might be expected, there was a strong s relationship with attitude toward emissions inspection. Among those strongly in favor of emissions inspection, 67% supported such a law, while only 35% of those strongly opposed t o emissions inspections supported such a law. A t a l a t e r point in the questionnaire, respondents were asked i f they had "ever had occasion t o use regular gas01 ine in a vehicle designed t o use no-lead gasoline" (Question 2 9 ) . Only 7% admitted t o having done so (Table 32); rather less than EPA estimates of t h i s
practice, Younger people, men, and those opposed to emissions inspections were more 1 i kely t o admit t o engaging in this practice. Respondents were also asked i f they be1 ieved their vehicles ' emissions control systems were working properly a t the time of the survey (Question 3 2 ) . Only 6% said "no" (Table 40), again more frequently among younger and male respondents, b u t there seemed t o be no relation t o opinion on emissions inspection. When asked why i t was n o t working properly, slightly over one-third mentioned missing or disconnected emissions control parts (thus a l i t t l e over 2% of the total sample). Other problems mentioned included burning oi 1 , leakage, visible smoke, bad smell, due for a tune-up, defective exhaust system, high gas consumption, etc. (Table 41). Naturally one would not want t o consider these survey reports as providing definitive data on the extent of "tampering" with emissions control devices by Michigan drivers, b u t the survey suggests that this i s not a very extreme problem. One other general question concerned whether, i f they had t o choose, respondents would prefer a no-parking program t o a vehicle emissions program in order t o reduce a i r pollution in some places (Question 5 ) . Only a small plurality favored emissions inspection (46% t o 38%), while 5% said "neither" and 11% had no opinion (Table 5 ) . Pluralities of persons over 54 and residents of more rural count i e s preferred the no-parking alternative, as did a substantial majority of those opposed to an emissions inspection program on the previous question. 3.2 DETAILS OF AN EMISSIONS INSPECTION PROGRAM
A major issue in any inspection program concerns whether the
inspections should be carried o u t only a t special state inspection stations or whether existing private garages or service stations should be licensed to conduct the inspections. When asked about this (Question 6 ) , 39% of the respondents favored s t a t e inspection stations while 43% favored 1icensi ng private inspection stations (the most common procedure in states having periodic safety inspection programs), 1 % said either one was okay, 1% said neither was okay, and 16% had no
opinion (Table 6 ) . Younger persons, men, Detroi t-area residents, and those in favor of an emissions inspection program were more likely t o prefer state stations. When asked the reason for their preferences, more than half of those favoring s t a t e stations ci ted such factors as fai rness , consi stency, and less 1i kely t o be cheated, while another one-fifth mentioned general competence or efficiency, and 7% expressed a feeling of general confidence in a s t a t e program (Table 7 ) . Among the proponents of private licensing, the most common reason was the belief that i t would be less costly t o use existing stations and equipment ( 4 2 % ) . About one-quarter cited the greater convenience and more personal service of private inspection stations, and one-fifth indicated a general opposition t o expanded government activities or bureaucracy. Only 3% mentioned greater competence or efficiency as a reason for preferring private inspection stations.
I n a later question specifically on trust of state versus private inspectors (Question 15), 44% answered that they would t r u s t inspectors in state-operated stations more than they would t r u s t inspectors in state-licensed garages and service stations t o do a proper emissions t e s t (Table 18). Only 14%said they would trust private inspectors more, while 37% said there would be no difference, and 6% had no opinion. Trust of state inspectors was particularly strong among respondents 25-34 years 01d , Wayne County residents, higher income residents, and those strongly in favor of an emissions inspection program. Trust of private inspectors was greatest among persons over 34, residents of the most rural counties, low income respondents, s and those strongly opposed t o an emissions inspection program. A can be seen a t the bottom of Table 18, almost four-fifths of those who prefer state-operated inspection stations trust state inspectors more than private inspectors, while only 2% trust private inspectors more and 18%see no difference. Conversely, only one-fifth of those who prefer 1 icensing private inspection stations trust s t a t e inspectors more, while over one-quarter t r u s t private inspectors more and onehalf see no difference. Clearly different degrees of trust in the inspectors i s an important aspect o f public preference for state-
operated or pri vately-operated inspecti on stations. Another important issue in an inspection program has t o do with what kinds of vehicles should be included. When asked i f buses and large trucks should be included i f an inspection program were s e t up (Question 7 ) , an overwhelming majority were in favor (90%). Only 6% were opposed, and 4% had no opinion (Table 8 ) . There was somewhat greater opposition among those opposed t o an emissions inspection program.
A third important issue has t o do with the geographic coverage
of an inspection program. Respondents were asked i f an emissions inspection program were s e t u p whether i t should be required statewide or only in the areas with the most pollution problems (Question 8 ) . Half of the respondents were strongly in favor of making such a program statewide, and another 13%were not very strongly in favor of t h i s approach (Table 9). Only 21% were strongly opposed, and another 12% were not very strongly opposed (only 3% had no opinion). Persons over 34 and residents of rural areas were more likely t o be opposed, b u t majorities of respondents were favorable t o a statewide program in a l l areas of the state. Even among those opposed t o an emissions inspection program sentiment was almost equally divided for and against making the program statewide i f i t was establ ished. Another issue in implementing an inspection program concerns what 1 ongest driving distances and waiting times would be considered reasonable by the pub1 i c (Questions 9 and 10). The average acceptable longest driving distance was 14 miles, and this varied from 11 miles in Wayne County t o 18 miles in the most rural counties (Table 10). Not surprisingly, opponents of an emissions inspection program tended t o suggest lower acceptable driving distances. I n regard t o reasonable longest waiting and inspection time, the average was 34 minutes (Table 11 ), and again this average was somewhat less (27 minutes) among those strongly opposed t o an inspection program than among those strongly in favor of such a program (40 minutes).
A crucial concern t o everyone in thinking about an emissions
inspection program i s cost.
Respondents were asked: "What do you
think i s a reasonable inspection fee, or do you think the inspection should be paid for by other s t a t e funds?" (Question 11 ) . More than half of the respondents (58%)preferred a no-fee program, while 19% suggested $6.00 or less, 7% suggested $7-$11.00, 5% suggested more than that ( u p t o $30.00), and 11% had no opinion (Table 1 2 ) . The mean suggested inspection fee ( i ncl udi ng the no-fees) was $2.60. Preference for no fee was somewhat greater among the lowest income group, b u t those in favor of an emissions inspection program were only very slightly more will ing t o pay for i t themselves than were those who were opposed t o such a program. Sources of funds for an inspection program suggested by respondents incl uded lottery money, driver license fees, license plate fees, fuel tax, fines, and the automobile compan i es . Another implementation issue has t o do with a reasonable length of time for owners who fail the inspection t o get their vehicles fixed (Question 1 2 ) . The average number of days suggested was 42 (Table 13), while the range was from 2 days t o over 3 months. About one-fifth of the respondents suggested a period of less than one month, two-fifths suggested one m o n t h , one-thi rd suggested more than one month, and 8% had no opinion (Table 1 3 ) . Again those opposed t o the inspection program tended t o suggest sl ightly longer repai r periods .
A knotty detail in an emissions inspection program i s what t o do about older polluting cars for which repairs might cost almost as much as the value of the car. Respondents were asked i f they t h o u g h t vehicles should be exempted from repairing their emissions systems if the repair cost was a large percentage of the vehicle's value (Question 13). Slightly more than half (55%) favored this idea, 36% were opposed, and 9% had no opinion (Table 14). Lower income respondents and those opposed t o an emissions inspection program were more 1 i kely t o favor this exemption plan. Those in favor were asked t o suggest the minimum percentage for exemption, and the average answer was 27%, a1 though the range was 1% t o 100% (Table 15). The most frequently chosen numbers were lo%, 50%, 25%, and 20% in that order.
Again, the lowest income respondents and those opposed t o an inspection program tended t o suggest lower exemption percentages. The final issue concerning the details of an emissions inspect i o n programs which was asked about had t o do with motorists who could not afford t o have their emissions systems repaired (Question 14). Nine percent of the respondents supported exempting such vehicles from the emissions requirements, 45% supported setting u p a special s t a t e fund t o help such motorists, 31% supported taking such vehicles off the road, 6% suggested some other course, and 9% had no opinion (Table 1 6 ) . Male respondents, higher income respondents, and those strongly in favor of an emissions inspections program were more likely t o favor taking such vehicles off the road, while low income respondents and those opposed to an inspection program were more 1 i kely t o favor complete exemption. Respondents favoring a special s t a t e f u n d were further asked i f this should be a loan fund which the owner has t o pay back or should i t be a welfare grant. A substantial majority (62%) favored a loan fund, 28% favored a welfare grant, 6% said either or b o t h were okay, and 3% had no opinion (Table 17). On this question, the youngest and oldest age groups were more supportive of a welfare grant program, as were lower income respondents . 3.3 SAFETY INSPECTION AND COMBINED EMISSIONS-SAFETY INSPECTION The survey also included a number of questions relevant to safety inspection. Respondents were asked i f they favored or opposed a regular safety inspection program for Michigan (Question 16). A large majority (81%) reported being strongly in favor of such a program, and another 16% were n o t very strongly i n favor (Table 1 9 ) . Only 11% were strongly opposed, while 5% were n o t very strongly opposed, and 3% had no opinion. Support was f a i r l y evenly spread throughout the s t a t e and was greatest among women, persons aged 16-24, and persons strongly in favor of emissions inspection. B u t even among those strongly opposed t o emissions inspection, a substantial majority (64%)said they were in favor of safety inspection. Only
4% o f those who favored emissions i n s p e c t i o n s a i d they were opposed
t o safety inspection. Thus i t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e general p u b l i c f e e l s much more f a v o r a b l e t o t h e idea o f s a f e t y i n s p e c t i o n than t o t h e idea o f emissions inspection. Strong support f o r s a f e t y i n s p e c t i o n was a l s o The q u e s t i o n was worded as found i n a statewide telephone survey conducted by Market Opinion Research (1978) i n t h e summer o f 1978. f o l 1ows : Some s t a t e s have mandatory v e h i c l e s a f e t y i n s p e c t i o n programs, w i t h each v e h i c l e owner r e q u i r e d t o o b t a i n an approved i n s p e c t i o n s t i c k e r each y e a r f o r each v e h i c l e he owns and operates. This i n s p e c t i o n n o r m a l l y c o s t s about $7.00 per v e h i c l e . Do you f e e l t h a t Michigan should have a r e q u i r e d v e h i c l e i n s p e c t i o n program o f t h i s type? Even w i t h t h e s p e c i f i c mention o f a normal $7.00 fee, t h e Market Opinion survey found 62% o f i t s sample o f 1 icensed d r i v e r s i n f a v o r o f a r e q u i r e d s a f e t y i n s p e c t i o n program. A 1967 HSRI survey i n Ann Arbor conducted among 536 d r i v e r s who were stopped f o r a random s p o t s a f e t y check a l s o had found h i g h support f o r s a f e t y i n s p e c t i o n , w i t h 92% f a v o r i n g a p e r i o d i c v e h i c l e i n s p e c t i o n law i n Michigan (Sherman, 1972). The Market Opinion Research survey a l s o asked supporters o f safety i n s p e c t i o n if t h e program should be operated by t h e s t a t e o r by p r i v a t e garage owners. I n contrast t o the results o f the s i m i l a r HSRI question discussed e a r l i e r , 78% o f t h e Market Opinion Research supporters o f s a f e t y i n s p e c t i o n s p r e f e r r e d a state-operated program and o n l y 112 p r e f e r r e d o p e r a t i o n through p r i v a t e garage owners. S i m i l a r l y , t h e Ann Arbor survey i n 1967 found 64% p r e f e r r i n g s t a t e operated i n s p e c t i o n f a c i 1it i e s , whi 1e o n l y 29% p r e f e r r e d s t a t e 1 icensed p r i v a t e garages. A11 H S R I respondents were a l s o asked how they f e l t about a combined i n s p e c t i o n program f o r b o t h s a f e t y and emissions ( Q u e s t i o n 17). Much g r e a t e r support was r e g i s t e r e d f o r t h e combined inspect i o n than f o r an emissions i n s p e c t i o n alone, although support f o r
-
..
combi ned inspection was somewhat 1 ess than for a safety inspection alone. Almost three-quarters o f the sample (73%) said they were in favor of a combined program, while 21% were opposed, and 7% had no opinion (Table 20). Even a plurality (48.5%) of those opposed t o emissions inspection alone were i n favor of a combined program, a1 though given the questionnaire context i t may be that some meant to express support for the combined program only i f an emissions s inspection program were t o be established anyhow. A with emissions inspection alone, support for combined inspection was somewhat greater among younger drivers, females, and more urban residents. Of course, opinions on the separate emissions inspection and safety inspection programs were highly related t o opinion on a combined inspection. Table 20A shows the interrelationship of opinions on these two questions t o opinions on a combined inspection program. Almost everyone in favor of both types of inspection was in favor of a combined inspection, and substantial majorities of those opposed t o emissions inspection b u t in favor o f safety inspection also favored a combined inspection. Even substantial groups of respondents who had been opposed t o both inspection programs were in favor of a combined program. Obviously this relatively strong public support for a combined inspection program should be taken into account in developing plans for a vehicle inspection program in Michigan. When asked t o suggest a reasonable fee for a combined inspection program (Question 18), a majority of respondents (51%) again opted for "other s t a t e funds." Almost 18%had no opinion, a n d 31% suggested a fee ranging from $1 .OO t o $60.00 (Table 21 ) . Most of the 466 respondents who favored other s t a t e funds for an emissions inspection program also favored other s t a t e funds for a combined inspection program, b u t 46 respondents who had suggested no fee on the f i r s t question suggested a fee for the combined program, while 20 respondents who suggested a fee for emissions inspection chose no fee for a combined inspection. Respondents favorable t o emissions inspection, safety inspection, and a combined inspection were somewhat more likely t o suggest a fee, b u t s t i l l 49.3% of those in favor
of a combined inspection preferred other s t a t e funds as the financial source (Table 21A). The average suggested fee for a combined inspection was $4.98 (including the no-fees) , considerabl Y greater than the average suggested fee of $2.57 for an emissions inspection alone. Ten dollars was the most frequent suggestion (made by 26% of those who suggested any f e e ) , fol lowed by $5, $1 5 , $20, $25, $7, $ 2 , $30, and $50. Respondents were a1 so asked how much they t h o u g h t required safety inspections would reduce motor vehicle accidents in Michigan (Question 19). Twenty-nine percent answered "a lot" and 49% said "some," while only 20% said "not much" (Table 2 2 ) . Women, Wayne County residents, low income respondents, and those strongly in favor of emissions inspections were more optimistic about the benefits of safety inspections. A would be expected there was also a strong s relationship between favoring safety inspections and expecting a substantial safety benefit from such inspections. When asked i f they considered their oldest vehicle in safe operating condition (Question 27), 83% said yes and 14% said some repairs were needed (Table 2 9 ) . Respondents aged 16-34, male respondents, and low-income respondents were more likely t o have vehicles needing repair. Among the safety components needing repai r , 1 ights were mentioned most frequently ( 2 % ) ,followed by brakes ( 2 7 % ) , t i r e s (16%),muffler (14%),and engine problems (1 2 % ) (Table 30). When a l l respondents were asked what safety defects contribute most to accidents (Question 28), brakes were mentioned most frequently (782), followed by t i r e s ( 4 7 2 ) , 1 ights (35%),and steering problems (29%) (Table 31 ) . 3.4 NOISE AND DIAGNOSTIC INSPECTIONS I t has also been suggested that i t would be desirable t o have a s t a t e inspection program for vehicle noise t o help enforce the new s t a t e rules on allowable vehicle noise. Accordingly, a question was asked about this kind of inspection (Question 20), and 50% said they were strongly in favor of a noise inspection. Another 175 were n o t
-
,-
very strongly in favor, while 15%were strongly opposed, 11% were n o t very strongly opposed, and 7% had no opinion (Tabl e 2 3 ) . Thus public support for noise inspection (67%)was intermediate between support for safety inspection (81%)and support for emissions inspect i o n (48%)and just a l i t t l e less than support for a combined emissions and safety inspection (73%). Opposition to noise inspecti on was somewhat greater among younger people, among ma1 es , and among those strongly opposed t o emissions inspections, b u t substantial majorities of a1 1 groups were favorable t o noise inspection, including 83%of those strongly in favor of emissions inspection and 54% of those strongly opposed t o emissions inspection. There was a f a i r l y strong relationship with attitude toward safety inspection with 79% of those favoring safety inspection also favoring noise inspection and 66% o f those opposing safety inspection also opposing noise inspection (Table 23A). When asked if they were ever disturbed by the noise made by individual noisy vehicles (Question 2 1 ) , 30% said they were not, while 33%mentioned being disturbed by motorcycles, 21 % by trucks, 20% by vehicles with bad mufflers, 73% by h o t rods and other high performance vehicles, and 10%by other types of vehicles (snownobi 1 es , buses, cars, etc. ) (Tabl e 2 4 ) . Respondents w h o reported having been disturbed by noisy vehicles were much more 1 i kely t o favor noise inspection (79%) than respondents who said they had n o t been disturbed by noisy vehicles ( 1 7 % ) (Table 23A). When asked how s t r i c t l y s t a t e rules on motor vehicle noise should be enforced (Question 2 2 ) , 36%were in favor of very s t r i c t enforcement, 45% of somewhat s t r i c t enforcement, and 14% of n o t very s t r i c t enforcement, while 5% had no opinion (Table 25). A s with noise inspections, younger respondents, males, and those strongly opposed t o emissions inspections were more 1 i kely t o oppose s t r i c t enforcement o f noise rules. A would be expected, s there was a strong relationship between attitudes toward noise rules enforcement and noise inspection. Four-fifths of those favoring very s t r i c t enforcement were strongly in favor of noise
-
,.
inspection, while one-half of those preferring n o t very s t r i c t enforcement were strongly opposed t o noise inspection (Tab1e 23A).
A few areas have also experimented with government-operated diagnostic centers where motorists can pay to have motor vehicle problems diagnosed by impartial mechanics, and i t was thought interesting t o include one question on this topic in the questionnaire (Question 23). More than two-thirds of the sample of Michigan drivers were favorable to the state setting u p such diagnostic cent e r s , while 24% were opposed and 8% had no opinion (Table 26). Persons aged 16-24, urban area residents, and respondents strongly in favor of emissions inspections were particularly supportive of such diagnostic centers.
3.5 DRIVERS, VEHICLES, AND MAINTENANCE PRACTICES Only 16% of the driver sample reported living in one-driver households (Question 50), while 54% lived in two-driver households, 15% 1 ived in three-dri ver households, and 15%1 ived in households with more than three drivers (Table 2 7 ) . Similarly, only 24% reported 1 iving in a one-vehicle household, 40% 1 ived in two-vehicle households, 18% lived in three-vehicle households, and 17% lived in households with four or more motor vehicles. Only four respondents reported no vehicles in their households. One-fifth of the respondents lived in households with more motor vehicles (including motorcycles, dune buggies, motorhomes, etc. ) than 1 icensed drivers, while 57% lived in households with the same number of motor vehicles as licensed drivers, and only 23% lived in households with fewer motor vehicles than licensed drivers. The average age of the oldest vehicle in respondent households was seven years, and 2% had pre-1960 vehicles, while another 14%were 1960-1968 vehicles (Table 28). Only 26% of the oldest vehicles in respondent households were 1976-1979 models . All respondents were asked how closely they followed their owner's manuals for regular service and maintenance on their vehicles (Question 30), and 44% claimed t o follow the manual very closely,
and another 40% said they followed i t somewhat closely (Table 33). Only 12% said "not very closely." Younger d r i v e r s , male drivers, and low income drivers were l e s s l i k e l y t o follow the manual closely, b u t there was no relationship between following the owner's manual and degree of education. Drivers who followed t h e i r manuals very o r somewhat closely were also asked how often they tuned up t h e i r oldest vehicle. Answers were given in e i t h e r months o r miles with s i x months the most frequent response, followed by 12 months (Table 34). For miles the most frequent response was 10,000; followed by 5,000; 3,000; 12,000; 15,000; 20,000; and 6,000. The largest number of months mentioned was 24, and the largest number of miles mentioned was 50,000. Finally, a l l respondents were asked i f they did routine maintenance and repair of t h e i r vehicles themselves o r what (Question 31). Almost one-thi rd said they did such maintenance themselves, whi 1 e another 23% said such maintenance was performed by others in the household o r friends (Table 35). Not unexpectedly, such s e l f maintenance a c t i v i t y was somewhat greater among younger respondents, and i t was very much greater among male respondents (52%) than among female respondents (12%). Slightly over half of these self-maintenance respondents reported t h a t they considered the emissions control devices when they d i d a tune-up (Table 36). Two-thirds of those strongly favoring emi s s i ons inspections reported doing t h i s . About half of these respondents thought i t very 1ikely t h a t they could perform major repairs on t h e i r emissions systems themselves, while 23% thought i t somewhat l i k e l y , and 25% thought i t n o t very l i k e l y (Table 37). These self-maintenance respondents were a l s o asked one safetyre1 ated question concerning brake maintenance (Question 31 C ) . Some 84% reported t h a t they check t h e i r brakes during normal maintenance, and another 9% said they sometimes do (Table 38). A majority of those who said they check t h e i r brakes reported doing so by pulling a wheel (56%) o r by visual inspection (10%) (Table 39). Some other answers were by checking the brake f l u i d ( l o % ) , by checking the pedal pressure (1 I % ) , and by t e s t driving ( 8 % ) .
4.
CONCLUSION
Establ ishing a motor vehicle inspection program in Michigan i s n o t the kind of legislative issue on which public opinion might be expected t o take a lead initiating role. Nevertheless, this survey indicates that even with very l i t t l e prior discussion in the media almost half of Michigan drivers are favorably disposed toward a s t a t e emissions inspection program, and almost one-thi rd are strongly supportive. Also the publ i c seems overwhelmingly favorable to a s t a t e safety inspection program and strongly favorable t o a s t a t e noise inspection program, and i t appears that combining these with an emissions inspection program would enhance publ i c support for i t , even among those who are opposed to an emissions inspection program alone. However, there i s also a substantial group who are strongly opposed t o an emissions inspection program, and judging by the comments which have been added t o the mail questionnaires (see Appendix B ) some of these people are likely t o remain strongly opposed. Regarding the various details of a s t a t e inspection program, there are few clear publ ic sentiments. The public i s divided between perferring s t a t e inspection stations and preferring 1 icensing of private garages and between charging an inspection fee and paying for the program from other s t a t e funds. There i s f a i r l y strong support for making any inspection program statewide in application, and there i s very strong support for including buses and large trucks in any such program. The public i s also divided in regard t o exempting older vehicles which would be expensive t o repair and in regard t o providing a s t a t e fund to help those for whom repair would be a financial hardship. I t i s hoped that these findings concerning the opinions of Michigan drivers toward vehicle inspections will be useful t o the Department of Transportation and the 1 egislature as they wrest1 e
w i t h t h e question o f what k i n d o f an i n s p e c t i o n program, i f any, t o e s t a b l i s h i n Michigan.
5.
REFERENCES
Market Opinion Research. A Survey of Driver and Motorcyclist Attitudes Toward Highway Safety Issues, Volumes I and 11, Detroit, September, 1978. Sherman, Harold W. "Sampling of Driver Opinions Toward Periodic Motor Vehicle Inspection," in Highway Research Record Number 420, - pp. 36-43, Washington: Highway Research Board, 1972.
APPENDIX A
Tables for Survey Findings
NOTE:
Tables 7 , 24, 30, and 31 are based on questions allowing more than one response per respondent, so the percentages in these mu1 t i p l e response tables may add t o more than 100%.
TABLE 1 THOSE BOTHERED BY AIR POLLUTION (Question 1 ) Percentages N AGE 16-24 25-34 35-54 5 5+ SEX Ma1e Fema 1e A Lot Some Not Much Not i n L a s t Year Never
-
171 219 262 158 420 390
3.5 5.5 3.8 6.3 2.9 6.7 9.5 2.8 4.7 1.1 4.8 6.0 0 3.8 2.3 4.2 6.6 6.7
19.3 20.5 16.4 7.6 14.0 19.0 28.5 15.9 11.6 15.1 15.7 8.0 14.6 7.7 14.4 14.8 19.9 15.2
11.7 11.4
9.2
10.8 12.6 8.5 14.0
4.1 2.7 4.2 5.1 4.0 3.8 6.1 1.7 7.0 3.2 3.6 2.0 2.4 4.8 2.3 2.1 4.1 7.6
'
61.4 59.8 66.4 70.3 66.4 62.1 41.9 72.2 66.3 65.6 67.5 80.0 68.3 74.0 73.6 68.4 57.7 58.1
GEOGRAPHICAL AREA Wayne 179 Oakland, Macomb 176 O t h e r D e t r o i t SMSA 86 Genesee, Ingharn, Kent 93 O t h e r C e n t r a l SMSA Counties 83 O t h e r Suburban 50 SMSA Count ies O t h e r Counties w/ 41 Cities>15,000 Rural Counties 104 INCOME Over $30,000 $20,000 - $30,000 $10,000 $20,000 Under $10,000 174 237 241 105
- 7.4
15.1 8.4 4.0
10.5
14.6 9.6 7.5 10.5 11.6 12.4
-
EMISSIONS INSPECTION ATTITUDE S t r o n g l y Favor 249 Weakly Favor 137 Weakly Oppose 96 S t r o n g l y Oppose 247 TOTAL 812
10.4 2.9 1.0 2.8 4.7
24.9 13.1 13.5 10.9 16.5
11.2 10.2 5.2 9.3 10.6
6.5
::: 1
I
1
1.2
52.2 70.8 78.1 70.4
4.1
64.2
-
,.
TABLE 2
HOW WIDESPREAD I S THE POLLUTION PROBLEM I N MICHIGAB? ( Q u e s t i o n 2 )
Percentages Big N Nowhere C i t i e s AGE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ SEX Ma1 e Femal e GEOGRAPHICAL AREA Wayne Oakland, Macomb O t h e r D e t r o i t SMSA Genesee, Ingham, Kent Other C e n t r a l SMSA Counties O t h e r Suburban SMSA Count i es Other Counties w i t h C i t i e s >15,000 Rural Counties INCOME Over $30,000 920,000 - $30,000 910~000-$20~000 Under $10,000
No Southern Michigan Statewide Opinion
172 222 264 158 421 395 183 176 86 94 82 51 41 105 173 238 245 107
2.3 1.4 4.2 5.1 4.0 2.3 2.2 5.1 3.5 2.1 2.4 7.8 4.9 1.0 4.6 2.1 2.0 5.6
54.1 51.8 52.7 57.0 58.7 48.1 47.5 51.1 57.0 58.5 52.4 52.9 63.4 57.1 55.5 57.6 51.0 45.8
22.1 24.3 21.2 12.7 20.7 20.5 26.2 23.9 18.6 17.0 19.5 17.6 12.2 16.2 24.9 21 .O 22.0 15.0
15.7 15.3 10.6 10.8 9.0 17.2 12.6 11 - 4 10.5 16.0 14.6 13.7 9.8 15.2 11 .O 11.3 14.7 17.8
5.8 7.2 11.4 14.6 7.6 11.9 11.5 8.5 10.5 6.4 11 .O 7.8 9.8 10.5 4.0 8.0 10.2 15.9
EM1 SS IONS INSPECTION ATTITUDE S t r o n g l y Favor 250 Weakly Favor 136 Weakly Oppose 97 S t r o n g l y Oppose 249
TOTAL
I 818
1.6 0.7 4.1 6.4 3.3
41.6 52.9 62.9 65.1 53.4
25.6 23.5 17.5 16.1 20.7
24.4 14.7 8.2 4.8 13.0
6.8 8.1 7.2 7.6 9.7
TABLE 3 LAW PROHIBITING REGULAR GAS I N NO-LEAD CARS ( ~ u e s t i o n3) Percentages N Favor Oppose No Opinion
AGE
16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ SEX Ma1e Fema1e GEOGRAPHICAL AREA Wayne Oak1and, Macomb O t h e r D e t r o i t SMSA Genesee, Ingham, Kent Other C e n t r a l SMSA Counties O t h e r Suburban SMSA Count ies Other Counties w i t h C i t i e s >15,000 Rural Counties INCOME Over $30,000 $20,000 $30,000 $10,000-$20,000 Under $10,000 170 222 264 160 421 395 180 177 86 94 83 51 42 105 174 237 245 107 57.1 53.2 45.1 45.6 46.8 53.2 48.3 57.1 45.3 55.3 55.4 41.2 40.5 42.9 51.7 56.1 49.8 38.3 32.9 36.0 40.9 33.1 41.1 31.4 38.3 29.9 39.5 37.2 27.7 49.0 47.6 37.1 37.4 36.3 35.5 36.4 10.0 10.8 14.0 21.3 12.1 15.4 13.3 13.0 15.1 7.4 16.9 9.8 11.9 20.0 10.9 7.6 14.7 25.2
-
EMISSIONS INSPECTION ATTITUDE S t r o n g l y Favor Weakly Favor Weakly Oppose S t r o n g l y Oppose TOTAL
251 135 97 249 81 8
68.5 58.5 37.1 35.3 49.9
23.9 26.7 50.5 53.8
7.6 14.8 12.4 10.8 13.7
36.4
-
..
TABLE 4
EMISSIONS INSPECTION ATTITUDE (Question 4)
Percentages
N
AGE 16-24 25-34 35- 54 5% SEX Ma1e Fema1e 171 218 259 159
Strong Weak Favor Favor
1
Weakly Strong N0 Oppose Oppose Depends Opinion
1
38.0 38.5 28.6 17.6
0
1.8 0.8 3.1 1.2 1.5 1.1 1.7 1.2 4.3 0 0 0 1 .o 0.6 2.9 0.4 1.9
7.0 7.3 6.6 11.3 5.3 10.5
417 29.3 390 33.1
GEOGRAPHI CAL AREA 179 39.7 Wayne 175 37.7 Oak1and, Macornb Other D e t r o i t SMSl 86 23.3 Genesee, Ingharn, 92 34.8 Kent Other Central SMSi 81 29.6 Coun-ties Other Suburban 50 16.0 SMSA Counties Other Counties w 42 19.0 C i t i e s >15,000 104 21.2 Rural Counties INCOME Over $30,000 $20,000 - $30,000 $10,000 - $20,000 Under $1 0,000
-
174 238 237 105
36.2 29.4 32.5 28.6
EMISSIONS INSPECTIO! ATTITUDE Strongly Favor Weakly Favor Weakly Oppose S t r o n g l y Oppose
--
TOTAL
809 31.0
-.
TABLE 5
1 PARKING OR E M I S S I O N S PROGRAM
( Q u e s t i o n 5)
Percentages N AGE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ SEX Ma1e Ferna 1e Emissions No P a r k i n g I n s p e c t i o n Nei t h e
Bath
N0 Opinion
'
172 222 261 159 422 392
32.0 38.3 40.2 39.6 38.4 37.2 31.1 36.2 40.7 38.7 33.7 50.0 42.9 45.2 32.4 46.8 34.8 39.8
2.3 5.4 6.1 4.4
0 0 0.4 0.6
GEOGRAPHICAL AREA Wayne 180 Oakland, Macomb 177 O t h e r D e t r o i t SMSA 86 Genesee, Ingham, 93 Kent Other C e n t r a l SMSA 83 Counties O t h e r Suburban 50 SMSA Counties Other Counties w/ 42 C i t i e s >I 5,000 Rural Counties 104 INCOME Over $30,000 $30,000 $20,000 $20,000 $10,000 Under $1 0,000 173 237 244 108
-
EMISSIONS INSPECTION ATTITUDE S t r o n g l y Favor 250 Weakly Favor 137 Weakly Oppose 96 3 t r o n g l y Oppose 246 TOTAL 815
21.2 24.1 49.0 59.3 37.9
- ..
TABLE 6 STATE OR PRIVATE STATIONS FOR THE EMISSIONS INSPECTION (Ques. 6) Percentages N AGE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ State 44.8 43.4 32.4 36.1 42.8 34.6 47.7 42.5 36.9 35.5 37.3 34.0 28.6 30.1 45.0 37.9 39.7 31.4 Private 40.7 43.0 48.6 38.6 40.8 46.2 28.4 40.8 47.6 50.5 38.6 52.0 54.8 58.3 45.6 44.3 43.8 41.9 Either 1.2 0 2.0 0 1.2 0.5 1.1 1.1 0 1.1 1.2 0 2.4 0 2.3 0.9 0 1.0
No N e i t h e r Opinion
-
172 221 253 158 414 390
0 1.4 0.8 1.9 0.5 1.5 2.8 0.6 1.2 1.1 0 0 0 0 1.2 0.9 0.8 0
13.4 12.2 16.2 23.4 14.7 17.2 19.9 14.9 14.3 11.8 22.9 14.0 14.3 11.7 5.8 16.2 15.7 25.7
SEX
Ma1e Ferna1e
GEOGRAPHICAL AREA Wayne 176 Oak1and, Macomb 174 Other D e t r o i t SMSA 84 Genesee, Ingham, Kent 93 O t h e r C e n t r a l SMSA 83 Counties O t h e r Suburban 50 SMSA Count i es Other Counties w/ 42 Cities>15,000 103 Rural Counties INCOME Over $30,000 $20,000 - $30,000 $10,000 $20,000 Under $1 0,000 171 235 242 105
-
EMISSIONS INSPECTION ATTITUDE S t r o n g l y Favor Weakly Favor Weakly Oppose S t r o n g l y Oppose TOTAL
249 136 97 239 805
55.8 45.6 34.0 26.8 38.9
35.3 43.4 48.5 52.3 43.4
0.4 1.5 0 1.7 0.9
0 0 1 .O 2.9
1 .O
8.4 9.6 16.5 16.3 15.9
.
.
TABLE 8 INCLUSION OF BUSES AND TRUCKS I N THE PROGRAM (.Question 7) Percentaqes
N
Favor
Oppose
No Opinion
D i d Not Answer
AGE 16-24 25-34 35-54 5 5+
SEX Ma1e Female GEOGRAPHICAL AREA Wayne Oak1 and, Macomb Other D e t r o i t SMSA Genesee, Ingham, Kent Other C e n t r a l SMSA Counties O t h e r Suburban SMSA Counties Other Counties w i t h Ci t i e s >15,000 Rural Counties INCOME Over $30,000 $20,000 $30,000 $10,000 $20,000 Under $1 0,000
171 21 9 262 159 41 7 394 183 175 84 92 82
51
87.1 92.7 88.9 89.9 89.2 90.4 89.1 94.3 90.5 90.2 84.1 86.3 90.2 87.6 92.0 92.0 91.4 82.7
9.4 4.1 6.5 5.0 6.5 5.8 7.7 2.9 7.1 7.6 9.8 5.9 2.4 6.7 6.9 5.9 4.5 8.7
3.5 3.2 4.2 5.0 4.3 3.6 3.3 2.9 2.4 2.2 4.9 7.8 7.3 5.7 .1.1 2.1 4.1 8.7
0 0 0.4 0 0 0.3 0 0 0 0 1.2
0
105 174 237 244 104
0 0 0 0 0 0
-
EMISSIONS INSPECTION ATTITUDE S t r o n g l y Favor Weakly Favor Weakly Oppose S t r o n g l y Oppose TOTAL
/
2 49 137 97 244
81 3
97.6 96.4 89.7 82.0 89.7
1.6 2.9 8.2 12.3 6.3
0.8 0.7 2.1 5.3 3.9
0 0 0 0.4 0.1
-.
..
TABLE 9 STATEWIDE PROGRAM O R \(/ORSTAREAS (Ques on 8 ) t.i Percen t a l e s
No
Opinion
AGE 16-24 25-34 35-54 5 5+
-- -
4.1 1.4 3.8 4.4
SEX Ma1 e Fema 1e GEOGRAPHICAL AREA Wayne Oak1 and, Macomb Other Detroit SMSA Genesee, Ingham, Kent Other Central SMSA Counties Other Suburban S S Count ies MA Other Counties w/ C i t i e s >15,000 Rural Counties INCOME Over $30,000 $20,000 - $30,000 $70,000 - $20,000 Under $1 0,000 EMISSIONS INSPECTION ATTITUDE Strongly Favor Weakly Favor Weakly Oppose Strongly Oppose TOTAL
812
50.7
175 236 243 106
13.1
11.6
21.3
3.3
TABLE 10 REASONABLE MAXIMUM MILES TO INSPECTION STATION (Question 9 ) Percentage
N
-
0-3
4-7
8-12 13-22 23-47
48NO 300 Opin. Mean
AGE 16-24 25-34 35-54 5 5+ SEX Ma1e Femal e
169 9.5 215 7.4 254 11.4 158 11.4 409 387 10.8 9.0
75.4 16.3 19.3 17.1 17.4 17.1 24.2 19.7 12.2 16.1 17.5 7.8 11.9 12.2 15.8 16.4 21.3 14.3
28.4 28.4 20.9 25.9 26.4 24.5 21.3 31.8 31.7 32.3 20.0 21.6 23.8 17.3 25.1 28.0 25.1 21.9
22.5 26.0 27.6 15.8 22.2 25.3 20.2 26.0 20.7 22.6 25.0 27.5 23.8 27.6 28.1 25.9 23.0 19.0
11.8 10.7 7.5 8.2 9.8 9.0 5.1 5.8 11.0 8.6 11.3 13.7 19.0 15.3 12.3 7.8 9.2 9.5
3.0 4.7 2.8 2.5 2.9 3.6 0.6 0.6 6.1 4.3 3.8 2.0 4.8 9.2 3.5 4.3 2.5 3.8
9.5 6.5 10.6 19.0 10.5 11.4 17.4 7.5 11.0 7.5 11.3 11.8 9.5 8.2 5.3 10.8 7.9 20.0
14.7 15.1 13.2 12.2 13.5 14.3 10.7 12.2 16.1 14.1 14.7 14.4 16.3 18.0 15.3 14.4 12.5 14.5
GEOGRAPHI GAL AREA 178 11.2 Wayne Oakland, Macomb 173 8.7 O t h e r D e t r o i t SMSA 82 7.3 Genesee, Ingham, 93 8.6 Kent O t h e r C e n t r a l SMSA 80 1 3 Counties O t h e r Suburban 51 15.7 SMSA Counties Other Counties w i t h 42 7.1 C i t i e s >15,000 Rural Counties 98 10.2 INCOME Over $30,000 $20,000-$30,000 $10,000- $20,000 Under $1 0,000 EMISSIONS INSPECTION ATTITUDE S t r o n g l y Favor Weakly Favor Weakly Oppose S t r o n g l y Oppose TOTAL 171 9.9 232 6.9 239 10.9 105 11.4
247 6.5 133 8.3 97 7.2 236 16.9 797 9.9
15.0 17.3 18.6 18.2 17.2
24.3 26.3 30.9 26.3
25.5' 23.8
I
! '
31.2 27.8 15.5 21.6
13.8 10.5 9.3 5.1
4.9 3.0 3.1 2.1 3.3
4.5 6.8 15.5 9.7 10.9
16.8 14.2 12.7 11.2 13.9
I
9.4
..
TABLE 11 T REASONABLE MAXIMUM MINUTES A THE INSPECTION STATION (Ques 1 0 ) Percentages
-
N
AGE 16-24 25-34 35-54 5 5+
0-12 13-29 21.1 27.5 18.2 15.6
30 31-59
60
61600
NO Opin. Mean
34.0 30.2 36.2 37.4
171 9.9 218 10.1 258 13.2 160 8.1
31.0 11.7 17.0 35.8 6.4 12.8 34.5 4.7 16.7 33.8 5 . 0 21.9 4.1 9.5 18.2 15.2
2.3 7.0 1 . 4 6.0 3.9 8 . 9 3.1 12.5 2.6 2.8
SEX Ma1 e
Fema 1e
418 12.4 23.0 32.3 389 8 . 7 18.5 35.7
7 . 4 34.0 9 . 5 34.6
GEOGRAPHICAL AREA 180 9 . 4 Wayne 173 9.2 Oakland, Macomb O t h e r D e t r o i t S M S A 85 10.6 Genesee, Ingham, 93 9 . 7 Kent Other C e n t r a l SMSA 82 14.6 Counties Other Suburban 51 19.6 SMSA Counti es Other Counties w / I 41 4 . 9 Cities>l5,000 103 Rural Counties INCOME Over $30,000 $ 2 0 , 0 0 0 - $30,000 $lO,OOO - $20,000 Under $1 0,000
20.0 28.9 1 0 . 0 17.8 19.7 33.5 9.2 21.4 9.4 27.1 36.5 4.7 23.7 40.9 3.2 7.3 7.8 2.4 14.0 14.6 13.7 22.0
0.6 1 3 . 3 32.9 1 . 7 5 . 2 35.6 3.5 8 . 2 29.7 1.1 2.4 2.0 7.5 4.9 30.4 31.4
26.8 29.3 1 1 . 8 35.3 17.1 34.1
9 . 8 41.4
7 . 3 12.2 40.4
173 9 . 2 25.4 235 10.6 20.0 241 9 . 5 20.3 107 11.2 20.6
28.3 33.2 40.2 35.5
9.2 22.0 6.8 18.3 4.6 14.9 6 . 5 11.2
1.7 3.0 4.1 0.9
4.0 8.1 6.2 14.0
33.9 34.7 37.1 30.0
EMISSIONS INSPECTION ATTITUDE 250 4.0 S t r o n g l y Favor 136 5.1 Weakly Favor 97 6.2 Weakly Oppose 241 1 9 , 9 S t r o n g l y Oppose TOTAL
19.2 25.7 19.6 24.9
36.0 1 0 . 8 35.3 4.4 39.2 8 . 2 32.0 4.1 33.9 6.7
23.2 22.1 13.4 10.0 16.7
4 . 4 2.4 1 . 5 5.9 2.1 1 1 . 3 2 . 1 7.1 2.7 8.4
40.0 34.0 39.1 27.4 34.3
808 10.6 20.9
..
TABLE 12 REASONABLE INSPECTION FEE I N DOLLARS (.Question 11 Percentages None AGE 16-24 25-34 35-54 5 5+ SEX Ma1e Fema 1e GEOGRAPHICAL AREA Wayne Oakland, Macomb Other D e t r o i t SMSA Genesee, Ingham, Kent Other C e n t r a l SMSA Counties O t h e r Suburban SMSA Counties Other Counties w/ C i t i e s >15,000 Rural Counties INCOME Over $30,000 $30,000 $20,000 $20,000 $10,000 Under $1 0,000 No Opin. Mean
55.8 55.1 58.9 63.9 59.0 57.4
12.8 8.8 10.7 12.7 8.7 13.4 8.3 9.9 4.1 16.1 7.7 17.6 7.7 10.8 7.1 11.6 10.8 11.2
3.4 2.7 2.5 1.6 2.8 2.4 2.3 3.0 2.4 3.3 1.0 3.0 3.5 2.6 3.2 2.6 2.5 1.7
-
-
EMISSIONS INSPECTION ATTITUDE S t r o n g l y Favor Weakly Favor Weak1y Oppose S t r o n g l y Oppose TOTAL
8.9 10.4 11.3 8.5 11.0
3.4 2.6 1.8 2.2 2.6
-
..
TABLE 13 MAXIMUM DAYS FOR GETTING EMISSIONS SYSTEM WORKING PROPERLY Percentages
(Ques . 12)
N
2-7 3.0 2.3 4.7 6.4
5-14 10.7 14.3 10.2
1529 3.6 4.6 4.7 4.5
30 44.4 39.2 40.4 40.1
31-60 14.8 16.6 16.5 11.5
No 90+ O p i n i o ~ Mean
18.9 17.5 14.9 15.3 4.7 5.5 9.0 12.1
-
AGE 16-24 25-34 35-54 5 5+
SEX Ma1e Fema 1e
169 217 255 157
415 4.8 383 3.1 4.6 2.9 4.8 2.2 3.7 6.0 2.4 5.9 2.4 4.3 3.7 7.6
10.8 11.7 7.4 11.0 17.9 12.9 8.6 12.0 7.3 14.7 12.9 10.3 10.4 12.4
5.3 3.4 6.9 2.9 3.6 3.2 3.7 6.0
45.1 36.3 38.9 42.8 33.3 45.2 39.5 38.0
13.5 17.0 10.9 17.9 9.5 15.1 24.7 18.0 17.1 13.7 19.4 13.2 16.2 13.3
13.0 20.4 20.0 18.5 20.2 1.1 12.3 10.0 4.9 16.7 14.1 16.2 20.7 10.5
7.5 8.1 11.4 4.0 10.7 6.5 7.4 10.0 9.8 4.9 3.5 8.5 6.2 11.4
GEOGRAPHICAL AREA 175 Wayne 173 Oak1and, Macomb Other D e t r o i t SMSA 84 Genesee, Ingham, 93 Kent O t h e r C e n t r a l SMSA 81 Counties Other Suburban 50 SMSA C o u n t i e s O t h e r Counties w / 41 c i t i e s ,15,000 102 Rural Counties INCOME 170 Over $30,000 234 $30,000 $20,000 $10000-$20000241 105 ~nd;r $1 0,000 '
0 58.5 5.9 38.2
-
6.5 4.7 3.3 4.8
41.2 42.7 39.4 40.0
EMISSIONS INSPECTION ATTITUDE 249 S t r o n g l y Favor 136 Weakly Favor 96 Wea k7y Oppose 2341 S t r o n g l y Oppose TOTA t
6.4 4.4 4.2 1.7
7.6 19.1 10.4 12.4
5.2 5.9 1.0 4.3
48.2 40.4 39.6 37.2
13.7 17.6 14.6 16.2 15.3
1
17.3 11.0 15.6 19.7 16.5
I
1
1.6 1.5 14.6 8.5 7.8
799 4.0
1 3 4.4
, 40.8
i
. - ..
TABLE 14 ( Q u e s t i o n 13)
REPAIR EXEMPTION TO SOME OLD CARS Percentages
N
AGE 16-24 25-34 35-54 5 5+
SEX 172 216 258 160 41 8 390
I
Favor
Oppose
N0 Opinion
55.8 63.3 50.0 49.4 54.8 54.6 56.7 48.0 63.1 49.5 56.1 68.6 57.1 51.4 49.4 55.7 60.7 53.3
37.8 30.3 38.8 37.5 37.6 34.4 32.0 42.3 32.1 44.1 31.7 25.5 35.7 37.1 47.1 37.0 31.1 29.9
6.4 6.4 11.2 13.1 7.7 11 . O 11.2 9.7 4.8 6.5 12.2 5.9 7.1 11.4 3.4 7.2 8.2 16.8
Ma1 e
Femal e GEOGRAPHICAL AREA Wayne Oak1 and, Macomb O t h e r D e t r o i t SMSA Genesee, Ingham, Kent O t h e r C e n t r a l SMSA Counties O t h e r Suburban SMSA Counties O t h e r Counties w i t h C i t i e s >15,000 Rural Counties INCOME Over $30,000 $30,000 $20,000 $20,000 $10,000 Under $1 0,000
178 175 84 93 82 51 42 105 174 235 244 107
-
-
EMISSIONS INSPECTION ATTITUDE S t r o n g l y Favor Weakly Favor Weakly Oppose S t r o n g l y Oppose TOTAL
249 137 97 243
81 0
46.2 49.6 58.8 67.9 54.7
45.8 44.5 35.1 26.7 36.0
8.0 5.8 6.2 5.3 9.3
TABLE 15 REPAIR COST AS % OF VEHICLE'S VALUE FOR EXEPIPTION ( Q u e s . 13a) Percentages
L
-
8-17
N 1-7%
%
18-27 28-49 % % 50% 29.2 10.4 18.8 22.1 7.6 15.2 22.9 5.0 10.7 1 0 . 7 2.4 10.7 7.5 5.3 9.3 5.7 3.5 5.9 12.2 14.6 12.9
NO 51 -100 OpinionMean %
AGE 16-24 25-34 35-54 5 5+
96 145 140 84
3.1 7.6 11.4 14.3
14.6 22.1 17.1 15.5
7.3 4.8 5.0 4.8 5.4 5.3
16.7 20.7 27.9 41.7 21.3 30.7 27.1 23.0 17.5 17.6 28.6 44.1 34.6 25.5 22.5 16.4 30.3 31.7
31.3 27.1 25.7 24.4 26.8 28.0 28.7 24.7 30.1 30.0 26.1 27.2 25.6 25.3 24.7 29.2 28.3 19.6
SEX Ma1 e Fema 1e
240 10.4 19.6 21.3 225 7.6 16.0 22.2 1 7 . 8 17.8 31.0 18.4 8 . 8 31.6 21.6 10.2 19.6 24.5
GEOGRAPHICAL AREA Wayne 107 6 . 5 Oakland, Macomb 87 5 . 7 Other D e t r o i t SMS 57 14.0 Genesee, Ingham, Kent 51 7 . 8 Other Central SMS 49 12.2 Counties Other Suburban 34 8 . 8 SMSA Counti es Other Counties wf Cities > I 5,000 26 3 . 8 55 14.5 Rural Counties INCOME
1 7 . 8 3.7 12.6 3.4 1 4 . 0 10.5 17.6 8.2 9.8 4.1 5.9 7.7 1.8 5.6 4.5 5.8 1.6
14.7 1 4 . 7 15.4 30.8 12.7 23.6
0 11.8 7.7 3.6 0 18.2
89 10.1 25.8 15.7 10.1 10.1 Over $30,000 6 . 0 21.6 134 5 . 2 17.2 26.1 s20'ooo - $303000 2. 810'ooo - J20'ooo 155 6.5 16.1 21.9 6.5 16 - 9 3 Under $1 0,000 63 15.9 17.5 22.2 4.8
EMISSIONS INSPECTIOh ATTITUDE 124 S t r o n g l y Favor 72 Weakly Favor 62 Weakly Oppose 164 S t r o n g l y Oppose TOTAL
I
4.8 6.9 14.5 11.6
16.9 21.8 20.8 18.1 16.1 9.7 18.9 28.0 1 7 . 8 21.7
6.5 4.2 8.1 5.5 6.4
21.0 11.1 9.7 11.6
13.9
8.1 8.3 4.8 3.7 5.4
21.0 30.6 37.1 20.7 24.8
32.3 28.1 24.1 24.7 27.4
466 9 . 0
-
,.
TABLE 16 WHAT TO DO I F OWNER CAN NOT AFFORD A REPAIR (Question 14) Percentages Taken S t a t e Off t h e Exempted Fund Road AGE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55t SEX Ma1 e Femal e 170 217 255 159 41 1 390 4.1 10.1 10.2 10.7 9.5 8.5 5.6 6.4 6.0 12.9 9.9 18.4 21.4 8.7 7.5 7.3 9.9 14.6 57.1 44.7 39.2 43.4 40.4 50.5 45.3 50.3 54.2 35.5 42.0 38.8 38.1 46.6 45.7 45.7 44.4 50.5 28.2 27.2 38.0 28.9 36.7 25.4 30.2 33.5 28.9 33.3 37.0 26.5 23.8 30.1 38.2 32.1 30.0 20.4
Other 4.7 8.8 3.9 4.4 5.1 5.9 6.7 2.3 4.8 7.5 3.7 8.2 9.5 5.8 6.4 4.3 7.0 4.9
No Opinion
5.9 9.2 8.6 12.6 8.3 g.7 12.3 7.5 6.0 10.8 7.4 8.2 7.1 8.7 2.3 10.7 8.6 9.7
GEOGRAPHICAL AREA 179 Wayne 173 Oak1and, Macomb 83 O t h e r D e t r o i t SMSA Genesee, Ingham, 93 Kent Other C e n t r a l SMSA 81 Counties O t h e r Suburban 49 SMSA Counti es O t h e r Counties w i t h 42 C i t i e s >15,000 103 Rural Counties INCOME 173 Over $30,000 2 34 $30,000 $20,000 243 $10~000~$2~,~~0 103 Under $1 0,000
-
EMISSIONS INSPECTION ATTITUDE S t r o n g l y Favor Weakly Favor Weakly Oppose S t r o n g l y Oppose TOTAL
249 136 97 238
2.8 4.4 10.3 18.9
51.4 55.1 49.5 34.0
35.3 30.1 29.9 31.1
5.2 4.4 4.1 5.5
5.2 5.9 6.2 10.5
803
9.1
45.2
31.3
5.5
9.0
-
..
TABLE 17
STATE HELP AS A LOAN OR A WELFRREGRANT (Question 14a)
5
Percentages N AGE 16-24 25-34 35-54 97 97 101 69 167 197 81 87 45 34 34 79 16 48 79 107 107 54 Loan 56.7 72.2 64.4 52.2 62.9 61.4 51.9 62.1 73.3 50.0 64.7 84.2 62.5 66.7 62.0 72.0 58.9 48,1 We1 f a r e Grant 32.0 19.6 26.7 39.1 28.1 28.9 42.0 23.0 22.2 32.4 29.4 15.8 18.8 27.1 29.1 15.0 33.6 46.3 Either 6.2 7.2 5.9 5.8 5.4 7.1 3.7 10.3 4.4 14.7 2.9 0 12.5 2.1 6.3 11.2 4.7 0
No Opinion
5%
SEX Ma1e Fema 1e GEOGRAPHICAL AREA Wayne . Oakland, Macomb O t h e r D e t r o i t SMSA Genesee, Ingharn, Kent O t h e r C e n t r a l SMSA Counties O t h e r Suburban SMSA Counties O t h e r Counties w i t h C i t i e s *15,000 Rural Counti es INCOME Over $30,000 $2~,000-$30,000 $10,000 - $20,000 Under $10,000 EMISSIONS INSPECTION ATTITUDE S t r o n g l y Favor Weakly Favor Weakly Oppose S t r o n g l y Oppose TOTAL
5.2 1 .O 3.0 2.9 3.6 2.5 2.5 4.6 0 2.9 2.9
0
6.3 4.2 2.5 1.9 2.8 5.6
127 75 48 81 457
65.4 70.7 60.4 60.5 62.1
28.3 18.7 25.0 33.3 28.6
4.7 6.7 10.4 4.9 6.3
1.6 4.0 4.2 1.2
3.0
- ..
TABLE 18
STATE OR PRIVATE INSPECTORS FOR EMISSIONS TEST (Question 15) Percen taqes State AGE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ SEX Ma1e Fema1e GEOGRAPHICAL AREA Wayne Oak1and, Macomb Other D e t r o i t SMSA Genesee, Ingham, Kent Other Central SMSA Counties Other Suburban SMSA Counties Other Counties w i t / C i t i e s >15,000 Rural Counties INCOME Over $30,000 $30,000 $20,000 $20,000 $10,000 Under $10,000
I
Private
iNo
Difference N e i t h e r Opinion
No
-
EMISSIONS INSPECTION ATTITUDE S t r o n g l y Favor Weakly Favor Weakly Oppose S t r o n g l y Oppose TOTAL Prefer State Stations P r e f e r P r i v a t e Statns 312 349 78.8 19.8 2.2 26.4 17.9 50.7 0 0.3 1 .o 2.9
- . *..
TABLE 19 SAFETY INSPECTION ATTITUDE (Question .16)
I
I
Percentages
AGE 16-24
SEX Ma1 e Fema 7 e GEOGRAPHICAL AREA Wayne Oakland, Macomb Other Detroit SMSA Genesee, Ingham, Kent Other Central SMSA Counties Other Suburban S S Counti es MA Other Counties w i t h C i t i e s >15,000 Rural Counties INCOME Over $30,000 $20,000 $30 $10,000 - $20 Under $1 0,000
-
EMISSIONS INSPECTION ATTITUDE Strongly Favor 251 Weakly Favor 137 Weakly Oppose 97 Strongly Oppose 244
TOTAL
1
81 1
..
TABLE 20
.
.
COMBINED SAFETY AND EMISSIONS IPJSPECTION P,ROGRAM Percentages N AGE 16-24 25-34 35-54 172 21 8 260 160 41 8 392 180 173 85
94
17)
Favor 77.3 74.3 70.8 68.8 70.8 74.7 76.1 74.6 71.8 74.5 75.9 68.6 68.3 63.8 80.9 70.9 72.4 69.4
Oppose 16.3 21.6 23.5 18.8 22.5 18.4 15.6 19.7 23.5 18.1 20.5 25.5 26.8 25.7 16.2 24.5 20.6 18.5
No Opinion 6.4 4.1 5.8 12.5 6.7 6.9 8.3 5.8 4.7 7.4 3.6 5.9 4.9 10.5 2.9 4.6 7.0 12.0
5 5+
SEX Ma1e Femal e
GEOGRAPHICAL AREA Wayne Oak1 and, Macomb Other D e t r o i t SMSA Genesee, Ingham, Kent Other C e n t r a l SMSA Counties O t h e r Suburban SMSA Count ies Other Counties w i t h C i t i e s >15,000 Rural Counties INCOME Over $30,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000-$20,000 Under $1 0,000
83 51 41 105 173 237 243 108
-
EMISSIONS INSPECTION ATTITUDE S t r o n g l y Favor Weakly Favor Weakly Oppose S t r o n g l y Oppose TOTAL
251 137 97 243
92.8 87.6 70.1 48.6 72.7
5.2 8.0 21.6 45.7 20.6
2.0 4.4 8.2 5.8
6.8
1
I
812
TABLE 21 REASONABLE COMBINED INSPECTION FEES I N DOLLARS ( Q u e s t i o n 18)
I
Percentages
N
AGE 16-24 25-34 35-54 5 5+ SEX Ma1e Fema1e 170 211 252 158
None 1-3
I
4-5
7-11
12-22
23-60
No Opinion Mean
51.2 48.8 48.8 55.7
1.8 1.9 3.6 1.3 2.5 2.1 1.7 2.3 2.4 4.3 2.5 2.0
3.5 9.5 9.1 5.1 6.1 8.4 6.3 8.8 4.7 8.7 7.6 7.8
12.9 11.4 5.7 8.9 10.3 10.4 10.9 14.0 10.6 10.9 11.4 7,8
6.5 8.5 8.3 2.5 9.1 4.4 7.4 8.8 5.9 6.5 2.5 5.9
7.1 5.7 4.0 1.9 5.4 3.5 4.6 7.0 4.7 4.3 0 3.9 10.3 3.0 8.4 4.3 2.5 2.8
17.1 14.2 17.5 24.7 14.2 21.9 18.3 17.0 18.8 18.5 11.4 25.5 15.4 20.0 7.8 16.8 22.7 19.6
6.3 5.6 4.8 2.7 5.4 4.5 5.3 6.8 4.6 4.9 2.2 4.4 6.9 3.6 6.5 5.8 3.8 3.1
408 52.5 383 48.8 50.9 42.1 52.9 46.7 64.6 47.1 51.3 58.0 51.5 44.8 52.5 57.0
GEOGRAPHICAL AREA 175 Wayne 171 Oakland, Macomb O t h e r D e t r o i t SMSA 85 Genesee, Ingham, 92 Kent O t h e r C e n t r a l SMSA 79 Counties O t h e r Suburban 51 SMSA Counties Other Counties w/ 39 C i t i e s >15,000 100 Rural Counties INCOME 167 Over $30,000 232 820'ooo- '630y000 238 810~000~520~000 107 Under $10,000 EMISSIONS INSPECTION ATTITUDE 249 S t r o n g l y Favor 129 Weakly Favor 97 Weakly Oppose 232 S t r o n g l y Oppose TOTAL 792
0 10.3 2.0 5.0 1.8 2.6 2.1 3.7 7.8 8.2 8.0 5.6
2.6 10.3 6 . 0 6.0 13.2 9.6 12.5 10.8 8 . 4 3.8 7.5 3.7
48.6 54.3 51.5 55.2 50.8
1.2 8.0 0.8 1.6 2.1 14.4 3.9 6.9 2.3 7.2
12.4 10. 7.2 10.3 10.4
9.6 7.0 6.2 5.6
6.8
6.0 7.0 1.0 5.2
4.7
14.1 19.4 17.5 12.9 17.9
6.3 5.6 3.2 4.5 5.0
TABLE 22 ( Q u e s t i o n 19) H W MUCH SAFETY INSPECTIONS REDUCE ACCIDENTS I N MICHIGAN O Percentages N AGE 16-24 25- 34 35-54 55.1. SEX Ma1e Fema 1e 172 218 262 160 420 392 A Lot 31.4 29.8 26.3 30.0 26.4 31.9 37.8 29.1 29.4 32.3 21.7 23.5 26.2 20.2 24.0 30.0 29.6 36.1 Some 54.1 50.0 45.4 45.0 47.9 49.0 42.8 46.9 48.2 49.5 59.0 51 .O 45.2 51.9 53.1 46.8 50.2 41.7 Not Much 14.0 18.3 25.6 21.3 23.8 16.6 16.1 19.4 22.4 18.3 16.9 25.5 26.2 26.9 21.7 21.9 18.1 19.4 No Opinion 0.6 1.8 2.7 3.8 1.9 2.6 3.3 4.6 '0 0 2.4 0 2.4 1 .O 1 .I 1.3 2.1 2.8
GEOGRAPHICAL AREA 180 Wayne 175 Oak1 and, Macomb O t h e r D e t r o i t SMSA 85 Genesee, Ingham, 93 Kent O t h e r C e n t r a l SMSA 83 Counties O t h e r Suburban 51 SMSA Counties O t h e r Counties w i t h 42 C i t i e s >15,000 104 Rural Counties INCOME Over $30,000 $20,000 $30,000 $10,000-$20,000 Under $10,000 175 237 243 108
-
EMISSIONS INSPECTION ATTITUDE 251 S t r o n g l y Favor 137 Weakly Favor 97 Weakly Oppose 243 S t r o n g l y Oppose TOTAL SAFETY INSPECTION ATTITUDE Favor Oppose 813
1
45.4 27.7 16.5 20.2 29.0
I
47.0 61.3 57.7 3807 48.5
6.8 10.2 21.6 39.9 20.3
0.8 0.7 4.1 1.2 2.2
653 129
34.8 4.7
52.8 27.9
10.9 65.9
1.5 1.6
-
..
TABLE 23
5E INSPECTION ATTITUDE (Question 20)
Percentages Strongly Weakly Weakly Favor Favor Oppose AGE 16- 24 25- 34 35-54 5 5+ SEX Ma1e Fema1e GEOGRAPHICAL AREA Wayne Oak1and, Macomb Other D e t r o i t SMSA Genesee, Ingham, Kent Other Central SMSA Counties Other Suburban SMSA Counties Other Counties w i t C i t i e s >15,000 Rural Counties INCOME Over $30,000 $20,000 - $30,000 $10,000 - $20,000 Under $10,000 EMISSIONS INSPECTION ATTITUDE S t r o n g l y Favor Weakly Favor Weakly Oppose S t r o n g l y Oppose TOTAL
/
1
1
Strongly Oppose
1
No Opinion
I
808
TABLE 23A NOISE INSPECTION ATTITUDE ( Q u e s t i o n 20) Percentages Strongly Favor SAFETY INSPECT1O N ATTITUDE S t r o n g l y Favor Weakly Favor Weakly Oppose S t r o n g l y Oppose EVER DISTURBED BY NOISY VEHICLES Yes Strongly Oppose No Opinion
NOISE ENFORCEMENT ATTITUDE Very S t r i c t Somew h a t Strict Not Very Strict TOTAL
TABLE 24 TYPES OF VEHICLES DISTURBING YOU MOST (Question 21) Percentages Bad Motor- Hot SnowN Trucks c y c l e s Rods mobiles Other M u f f l e r None AGE 16-24 25- 34 35- 54 5 5+ SEX Ma1e Fema 1e
172 220 261 158 420 391
19.2 26.4 22.2 15.8 21.0 22.0
19.2 21.4 38.3 42.4 34.3 31.5 27.5 31.6 32.9 43.0 36.1 27.5 40.5 32.7 40.6 30.0 32.9 32.4
11.6 16.9 12.3 13.9 11.9 13.6 11.2 15.3 8.2 14.0 15.7 15.7 16.7 7.7 12.6 14.4 13.6 12.0
0 1.8 2.3 2.5 1.7 1.8 0.6 0.6 2.4 3.2 0 0 7.1 3.9 2.3 0.8 2.9 0.9
8.1 12.3 6.1 7.0 10.0 6.6 12.4 6.8 8.6 3.6 7.8 9.5 9.6 6.3 9.7 7.4 13.0
25.6 18.2 15.7 21.5 18.8 20.5
35.5 27.7 31.0 26.0 31.2 28.9 25.8 28.8 37*7 23.7 31.3 41.2 23.8 35.6 28.0 32.1 28.8 27.8
GEOGRAPHICAL AREA 178 28.7 Wayne 177 24.3 Oakland, Macomb O t h e r D e t r o i t SMSA 85 22.4 Genesee, Ingham, 93 15.1 Kent O t h e r C e n t r a l SMSA 83 18.1 Counties O t h e r Suburban 51 17.7 SMSA Counties O t h e r Counties w/ 42 14.3 C i t i e s >15,000 104 17.3 Rural Counties INCOME Over $30,000 $20,000- $30,000 $10,000 - $20,000 Under $1 0,000 175 237 243 108 24.6 24.1 18.5 16.7
21.9 21.5 j s g1 5 D 3 25.8 16.9 9.8 19.1 17.3 20.0 12.7 24.3 23.2
I
EMISSIONS INSPECTION ATTITUDE S t r o n g l y Favor 251 23.5 136 24.3 Weakly Favor 97 20.6 Weakly Oppose 244 18.9 S t r o n g l y Oppose TOTAL 813 21.4
32.7 33.1 28.9 35.7 33.0
17.1 13.2 9.3 10.7 12.7
1.6 2.2 2.1 1.6 1.7
10.8 7.4 5.2 9.4 8.4
22.7 20.6 14.4 15.6 19.6
24.7 26.5 39.2 33.2 30.1
..
TABLE 25 HOW STRICTLY SHOULD NOISE RULES BE ENFORCED .(Question 22) Percentages Strictly AGE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+
SEX
Somewhat Strictly
Not Very Strictly
N0 Opinion
4.7 4.1 5.8 7.6
Ma1 e
Fema 1e GEOGRAPHICAL AREA Wayne Oak1and, Macomb Other D e t r o i t SMSA Genesee, Ingham, Kent Other Central SMSA Counties Other Suburban SMSA Count ies Other Counties w / C i t i e s >15,000 Rural Counties INCOME Over $30,000 $20,000 $30,000 $10,000 - $20,000 Under $10,000
-
--
EMISSIONS INSPECTION ATTITUDE Strongly Favor Weakly Favor Weakly Oppose Strongly Oppose
--
TOTAL
..
TABLE 26 DIAGNOSTIC CENTERSATTITUDE ( Q u e s t i o n 23) Percentages
N
Favor 78.5 69.9 63.6 60.0 66.5 69.1 75.0 70.5 71.4 72.0 61.4 56.9 69.0 52.4 67.4 67.4 72.5 64.8
Oppose 14.5 24.7 26.4 28.8 26.6 21 . O 16.1 21.6 21.4 20.4 30.1 39.2 19.0 36.2 25.7 27.1 20.1 21.3
No Opinion 7.0 5.5 10.0 11.3 6.9 10.0 8.9 8.0 7.1 7.5 8.4 3.9 11.9 11.4 6.9 5.5 7.4 13.9
AGE 16-24 25-34 35- 54 55+
SEX Ma1 e Femal e GEOGRAPHICAL AREA Wayne Oak1 and, Macomb Other D e t r o i t SMSA Genesee, Ingham ,
172 21 9 261 160 42 1 391 180 176 84 93
83
Kent
Other Central SMSA
Counties
Other Suburban SMSA Counti es Other Counties w i t h Ci t i e s >15,000 Rural Counties INCOME Over $30,000 $20,000 $30,000 $10,000 $20,000 Under $1 0,000
51 42 105 175 236 2 44 108
-
-
EMISSIONS INSPECTION ATTITUDE S t r o n g l y Favor Weakly Favor Weakly Oppose S t r o n g l y Oppose TOTAL
251 137 97 243
81 4
82.5 72.3 60.8 57.6 67.6
14.7 20.4 24.7 36.2 24.0
2.8 7.3 14.4 6.2
8.5
?
a
C,
0 I -
.......... 7morao~I-~oo
Oa3a3dhhhO-a cum--
0 0 0
F
> >. r aJL vn ,
Q)
+L s aJ
V)
7
F
MN7
0000000000
...
r
0
7
V)
L
X
. r
aJ
v. ,r
>
L
7NLn
n
L aJ a
LL
F
0000000000
...
0
7
V)
>>
. F. F
bmmhr-
a
n
V)
L
0000~00000
.....
( U
a
Cr)
C,
0 I CC 0
V)
L LaJ
NNI-mYd-rnN
OO~c\l~dddOO
w s
u l a.
a~
3> 0.r LLL
....
h
Q I
n
Y ,
aJ
0
L
Q
a
aJL aaJ L>
Z
r-hNQOh(Ur. . a .
m
~ d o oe
r-
e
+L
o
o
e
~
C
U
o
n
V)
3> CSF
L OQ)
rNaQIhU7dr7
n
L aJ
5-
....... 00Fh(U00d00
c3
Q
m
Ln
a>
0L
I=
L7abrnr-F
C U
. r
n
Z
d~c;dddoooo
7
a
F
-QlhQNdCOr-Vl a3mFea3Nr-M-
7
0 a3
U U-.rer U UJZ.rSrUJZX S U . r m rQ ) t t . r a a aJ J , r t C > QI Q ) C > > - E r a a >>a I a > > QI >sw > aLa arQI aOLJ>X>OL 0 t 3 C 0 . r . r aJ.r 0 ZOI-cLLLLrnCnWr
Q)?-.r
F
ma
aa au--a
V)?
m awv,
V)
mc
w
aQIm mr-7.r UUW
7
C,
a
0 I -
-
,.
TABLE 28 MODEL YEAR OF THE OLDEST HOUSEHOLD VEHICLE (Question 26) Percentages
-
N 59 64 68
AGE 16-24 25-34 35- 54 55+ SEX Ma1e Femal e 169 219 259 153 3.6 2.3 1.9 0.7
6o 65
69 72
73
74 75 76 77
" Mean 79
0.6 7.7 40.8 11.8 9.5 6.5 11.2 8.3 71.7 1.8 14.2 23.3 14.6 9.6 6.8 15.1 12.3 72.2 2.7 13.5 23.2 13.9 12.4 7.7 16.2 8.5 72.4 2.6 12.4 22.9 7.2 11.8 7.8 22.2 12.4 73.1
415 1.9 1.4 14.0 28.7 12.8 10.8 5.8 15.7 8.9 72.1 385 2.3 2.6 10.4 24.9 11.9 10.9 8.8 16.4 11.7 72.5 1.7 1.2 12.1 21.4 11.6 13.9 9.2 20.8 8.1 72.8 0.6 1.7 11.4 23.9 14.2 11.9 9.1 15.9 11.4 73.1 2.4 3.6 17.9 32.1 9.5 6.0 7.1 11.9 9.5 71.5 1.1 2.2 2.4 3.9 8.8 36.3 11.0 9.9 7.7 14.3 8.8 72.4 7.2 72.3
GEOGRAPHICAL AREA 173 Wayne Oakland,. Macomb 176 O t h e r D e t r o i t SMSA 84 Genesee, Ingham, 91 Kent O t h e r C e n t r a l SMSP 83 Counties O t h e r Suburban 51 SMSA Count ies O t h e r Counties w/ 41 Cities '15'000 102 Rural Counties INCOME Over $30,000 $20,000 $30,000 $lo,ooo $20,000 Under $1 0,000 174 238 241 102
0 13.3 31.3 13.3 12.0 4.8 15.7 0 15.7 19.6 9.8
9.8 7.8 13.7 19.6 72.6
0 2.4 7.3 24.4 24.4 12.2 7.3 9.8 12.2 73.1 5.9 4.9 11.8 30.4 9.8 7.8 2.0 16.7 10.8 70.5 1.1 2.5 3.3 1.0 1.7 10.9 27.0 12.6 11.5 1 . 7 9.7 29.8 14.3 9.7 2.1 14.9 24.9 12.0 70.0 3.9 14.7 27.5 9.8 13.7 8.6 7.1 7.1 7.8 17.2 9.2 72.6 14.7 10.5 72.3 14.9 10.8 72.1 14.7 6.9 72.0
-
EMISSIONS INSPECTIOh ATTITUDE 248 S t r o n g l y Favor 136 Weakly Favor 97 Weakly Oppose 241 S t r o n g l y Oppose TOTAL
2.0 2.2 2.1 2.5
0.4 12.9 23.8 11.7 13.7 9.3 14.9 11.3 72.7 0.7 14.0 30.9 11.8 8.8 5.9 16.2 9.6 72.4 3.1 5.2 32.0 9.3 10.3 7.2 19.6 11.3 72.7 3.7 13.3 28.6 14.1 9.1 5.0 14.9 8.7 71.6
801 2.1 2.0 12.2 27.0 12.4 10.9 7.2 16.0 10.2 72.3
TABLE 29 ARE REPAIRS NEEDED ON OLDEST VEHICLE? (Ques. 27) Percentage
N
Safe Now 80.7 78.4 82.9 91.8 81.5 84.6 83.7 83.1 82.1 82.6 84.1 84.0 87.5 79.6 86.9 84.7 82.7 73.1
Repairs Needed 17.5 19.3 12.8 6.3 16.3 12.1 12.4 14.7 17.9 15.2 12.2 14.0 10.0 16.5 12.0 14.0 14.0 20.2
Do Not Know 1.8 2.3 4.3 7.9 2.2 3.3 3.9 2.3 0 2.2 3.7 2.0 2.5 3.9 1 .I 1.3 3.3 6.7
AGE 16-24 25-34 35-54 5% SEX Ma1e Fema 1e GEOGRAPHICAL AREA Wayne Oak1and, Macomb Other D e t r o i t SMSA Genesee, Ingham, Kent Other C e n t r a l SMSA Counties O t h e r Suburban SMSA Counties Other Counties w i t h C i t i e s >15,000 Rural Counties INCOME Over $30,000 $30,000 $20,000 $20,000 $10,000 Under $1 0,000
171 21 8 2 58 158 41 6 389 178 177 84 92 82 50 40 103 175 236 243 104
-
EMISSIONS INSPECTION ATTITUDE S t r o n g l y Favor Weakly Favor Weakly Oppose S t r o n g l y Oppose TOTAL
248 137 97 242
82.3 80.3 82.5 87.2
15.3 18.2 16.5 11.2
2.4 1.5 1.O 1.7
8 06
83.0
14.3
2.7
..
TABLE 30
WHAT COMPONENTS
NEED R E P A I R I N G ? (Question 27a)
Percentages
A1 ign-
N
AGE 16-24 25-34 35-54 5 5-t SEX Ma1e GEOGRAPHICAL AREA Wayne Oakland, Macomb Other D e t r o i t SMSA Genesee, Ingham, Kent Other Central SMSA Counties Other Suburban SMSA Counties Other Counties w/ C i t i e s >15,000 Rural Counties INCOME Over $30,000 $20,000 - $30,000 $10,000 $20,000 Under $10,000
Exhaust Brakes ment
Yind~nginc[;i6hts~;uspans h i e l d T i r e s Problems Signals s i o n
I
.. .
-
I-
Other -
-
EMISSIONS INSPECTION ATTITUDE Strongly Favor Weakly Favor Weakly Oppose Strongly Oppose TOTAL
/ 106 114.2
TABLE 31 VEHICLE DEFECTS CONTRIBUTING T ACCIDENTS ( Q u e s t i o n 28) O
Exhaust Brakes ment
/1
Percen tage,s
~ l i wind-1 - l Engine L i g h t s & Isuspen ~~
s h i e l d T i r e s Problems S i g n a l s sion
/
Other 1
AGE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ SEX Ma1e Fema 1e
-
GEOGRAPHICAL AREA Wayne Oakland, Macomb 1 6 ~ Other D e t r o i t SMSA 77 Genesee, Ingham, Kent 84 Other Central SMSA Counties 73 Other Suburban 44 SMSA Counties Other Counties w/ 37 C i t i e s >15,000 91 Rural Counties
lii
1
INCOME Over $30,000 I159 $20,000 $30,000 21 7 $10,000 - $20,000 219 UnderJ10,OOO 91
-
i
I
EMISSIONS INSPECTION ATTITUDE Strongly Favor 229 124 Weakly Favor 86 Weakly Oppose 218 S t r o n g l y Oppose TOTAL 1723
'
,
.
TABLE 32 EVER USED REGULAR I N NO-LEAD VEHICLES (Question 29) Percentages
INI
AGE 16-24 25-34 35- 54 5% SEX Ma1 e Fema 1e GEOGRAPHICAL AREA Wayne Oak1 and, Macomb Other D e t r o i t SMSA Genesee, I ngham, Kent Other C e n t r a l SMSA Counties O t h e r Suburban SMSA Counties Other Counties w/ C i t i e s >15,000 Rural Counties INCOME Over $30,000 $30,000 $20,000 $1 0,000 $20,000 Under $1 0,000 174 237 244 108
Yes
II
I
NO
/
~ o sure t
-
-
6.3 8.4 5.7 6.5
92.5 91.6 92.2 87.0
1.1 0 2.0 6.5
EMISSIONS INSPECTION ATTITUDE 250 S t r o n g l y Favor 137 Weakly Favor 97 Weakly Oppose 244 S t r o n g l y Oppose
3.6 5.8 10.3 10.7
94.8 93.4 87.6 87.7
1.6 0.7 2.1 1.6
I
TOTAL
I
TABLE 33 ( Q u e s t i o n 30) H W CLOSELY DO YOU FOLLOW THE ONNER'S MANUAL O Percentages N AGE 16-24 25-34 35-54 5 5+ SEX Ma1e Fema 1e Very Closely Somewhat Closely Not Very Closely Do Not Know
169 217 256 157 412 387
32.0 41 .O 48.4 54.1 41.7 46.5 41.1 42.3 38.6 56.4 34.1 50.0 47.5 49.5 42.1 49.6 40.9 38.1
44.4 44.2 40.2 31.2 41.5 39.3 42.9 40.0 45.8 34.0 47.6 38.0 40.0 33.7 40.9 41 . I 43.0 37.1
18.3 11.5 8.2 11.5 14.6 9.0 11.4 14.9 13.3 8.5 12.2 10.0 5.0 12.9 15.8 7.6 13.2 15.2
5.3 3.2 3.1 3.2 2.2 5.2 4.6 2.9 2.4 1.1 6.1 2.0 7.5 4.0 1.2 1.7 2.9 9.5
GEOGRAPHICAL AREA 175 Wayne 175 Oakland, Macomb O t h e r D e t r o i t SMSA 83 Genesee, Ingham, 94 Kent Other C e n t r a l SMSA 82 Counties O t h e r Suburban 50 SMSA Counti es Other Counties wl 40 C i t i e s >15,000 101 Rural Counties
-
INCOME
Over $30,000 $20,000 - $30,000 $10,000- $20,000 Under $1 0,000
171 236 242 105
EMISSIONS INSPECTION ATTITUDE 256 S t r o n g l y Favor 136 Weakly Favor 96 Weakly Oppose 240 S t r o n g l y Oppose TOTAL
800
47.3 45.6 44.8 44.2 44.1
39.2 40.4 35.4 42.9 40.4
11 .O 10.3
1::
11.9
1
2.4 3.7 6.3 1.3
3.6
TABLE 34 FREQUENCY OF TUNE UP ( Q u e s t i o n 30a.)
II
AGE
I
I
Percentages
-
7-12 13-24 Mo. Mo. 17.3 0 18.6 1 . 1 24.2 0.9 23.3 0.8 SEX Ma1 e Fema 1e GEOGRAPHICAL AREA Wayne 146 Oakland, Macomb 142 Other D e t r o i t SMSA 71 Genesee, Ingham, Kent 84 Other Central SMSA Counties 65 Other Suburban 42 SMSA Counties Other Counties w/! Cities ~ 1 5 , 0 0 01 36 Rural Counties 85 6.2 12.0 14.1 6.0 6.2 4.8
O 7.1
22.7 0.6 19.6 0.9 21.9 0.7 18.3 1 . 4 22.5 0 21.4 23.1 16.7 1.2 0 0
1
1
27.8 2 . 8 22.4 0 20.8 0.7 23.7 0.5 20.4 0.5 21.5 0
INCOME $20,000 - $30 $10,000 $20 Under $1 0,000
Over $30,000
-
EMISSIONS INSPECTION ATTITUDE 208 S t r o n g l y Favor Weakly Favor 11 7 Weakly Oppose 75 S t r o n g l y Oppose 21C TOTAL
20.2 21.4 22.7 21.9 21.3
1.4 0.9 1.3
0
0.7
TABLE 35 ROUTINE MAINTENANCE/REPAIRS DONE BY : (,Ques. 31 ) Percentages
-
-
-
N AGE 16-24 25-34 35-54
self
Some one
Else
Someone Someone S e l f All Don't and Else & Else Garage Garage & S e l f Garage Three Know ,
5%
SEX Ma1e Fema1e
17138.0 220 34.5 255 25.5 156 23.7 414 49.5 388 9.8
26.9 22.3 20.4 12.2 7.0 35.3
31.0 38.2 49.8 59.6 39.6 49.7
0.6 0.9 1.6 0.6 0 2.1
1.8 2.3 0 0 0.7 1.3
0.6 0.9 2.0 3.2 2.4 0.8
0.6 0.5 0.4 0 0.5 0.3
0.6 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.8
GEOGRAPHICAL AREA Wayne 178 26.4 Oakland, Macomb 176 30.7 Other D e t r o i t SMSA 84 34.5 Genesee, Ingham, Kent 19227.2 Other C e n t r a l SMSA Counties 80 32.5 O t h e r Suburban 50 28.0 SMSA Counties Other Counties w/ 40 27.5 C i t i e s >15,000 103 35.9 Rural Counties INCOME Over $30,000 $20,000- $30,000 $10,000 $20,000 Under $1 0,000 173 27.2 23733.3 244 29.1 103 33.0
25.8 26.1 26.2 14.1 15.0 12.0 15.0 15.5 21.4 22.8 21.7 14.6
0 44.9 0.6 35.8 0 36.9 55.4 50.0 52.0 55.0 42.7 46.2 41.4 43.4 50.5 1.1 2.5 2.0 0 2.9 1.2 0.8 1.2 0
1.1 1.1 2.4 0 0 4.0 0 0 1.2 0.4 1.6 0
1.1 4.0 0 2.2 0 0 0 1.9 2.9 0.8 1.2 1.0
0.6 0 1.1 0.6 0 0 0 0 2.0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 1.0
-
0 0 0 0.4 1.2 0.4 0 1.0
EMISSIONS INSPECTION ATTITUDE 24623.6 StronglyFavor 13628.7 Weakly Favor 97 34.0 Weakly Oppose S t r o n g l y ~ p P o s e 24239.7 TOTAL 803 30.3
22.8 22.1 24.7 14.0 20.8
48.4 44.1 41.2 41.7 44.5
1.2 2.2 0 0.8
2.0 0.7 0 0.4
1.6 1.5 0 2.9
1.6
O 0.4 0.7 0 0 0 0.4 0
0.4
0.5
1 . 0 , 1.0
I
TABLE 36 CONSIDER EMISSION DEVICES AT TUNE-UP (Question 31a) Percentages o f S e l f M a i n t a i n e r s N AGE Yes Somew h a t
No
Do Not Know
16-24
25-34 35-54 5 5-c SEX Ma1e Fema 1e GEOGRAPHICAL AREA Wayne Oakland, Macomb O t h e r D e t r o i t SMSA Genesee, Ingham, Kent Other C e n t r a l SMSA Counties O t h e r Suburban SMSA Count i es Other Counties w j C i t i e s >15,000 Rural Counties INCOME Over $30,000 $20,000 $30,000 $10,000 $20,000 Under $10,000
63 76 62 37
46.0 50.0 53.2 67.6
19.0 13.2 12.9 21.6
33.3 34.2 25.8 8.1
1.6 2.6 8.1 2.7
199 39 46 53 30
52.3 53.8 45.7 50.9 : 50 O 66.7 52.0 35.7 63.6 58.3 42,2 59.5 47.9 60.0
17.6 7.7 26.1 13.2 23.3 12.5 16.0 14.3 9.1 5.6 13.3 13.9 18.3 16.7
28.6 23.1 26.1 34.0 26.7 20.8 24.0 35.7 27.3 27.8 44.4 24.1 28.2 16.7
1.5 15.4 2.2 1.9 0 0 8.0 14.3 0 8.3
24
25 14 71 36 45 79 71 30
-
0 2.5 5.6 6.7
EMISSIONS INSPECTION ATTITUDE S t r o n g l y Favor Weakly Favor Weakly Oppose S t r o n g l y Oppose TOTAL
55 40 33 94 239
67.3 47.5 45.5 50.0 52.3
20.0 20.0 18.2 11.7
15.9
12.7 30.0 30.3 33.0
28.0
0 2.5 6.1 5.3 3.8
TABLE 37 LIKELIHOOD OF REPAIRING THE EXHAUST SYSTEM ONESELF (Ques. 31b) Percentages o f Sel f - M a i n t a i n e r s
N
AGE 16-24 25-34 35-54 5 5+ SEX Ma1e Fema 1e GEOGRAPHICAL AREA Wayne Oak1 and, Macomb O t h e r D e t r o i t SMSA Genesee, Ingham, Kent Other C e n t r a l SMSA Counties O t h e r Suburban SMSA Counties O t h e r Counties w i t h C i t i e s >15,000 Rural Counties INCOME Over $30,000 $20,000 $30,000 $10,000 $20,000 Under $1 0,000 65 77 65 36
Very Likely 53.8 55.8 49.2 33.3
Somew h a t Likely 24.6 22.1 20.0 25.0
Not Very Likely 16.9 20.8 30.8 38.9
Do Not Know 4.6 1.3 0 2.8
208 39 47 55 30 24 26 14 11 36 47 79 71 33
52.0 41.0 46.8 52.7 53.3 45.8 57.7 57.1 54.5 41.7 40.4 48.1 57.7 54.5
21.6 28.2 23.4 27.3 26.7 12.5 11.5 21.4 9.1 30.6 27.7 22.8 18.3 24.2
24.0 30.8 25.5 20.0 20.0 37.5 23.1 21.4 36.4 27.8 31 - 9 29.1 78.3 18.2
2.5 0 4.3 0 0 4.2 7.7 0
0 0
-
0 0 5.6 3.0
EMISSIONS INSPECTION ATTITUDE S t r o n g l y Favor Weakly Favor Weakly Oppose S t r o n g l y Oppose TOTAL
59 40 33 94
47.5 47.5 36.4 56.4
27.1 30.0 24.2 17.0
25.4 22.5 36.4 23.4
0 0 3.0 3.2
243
50.2
22.6
25.1
2.1
TABLE 38 SELF CHECKING O F BRAKES ( Q u e s t i o n 31c) Percentages of Sel f-Maintainers
N
Yes 83.1 81.6 85.9 89.2 83.7 87.2 82.2 89.3 75.9 75.0 92.3 78.6 100.0 83.8 78.7 87.5 84.5 90.6
Somes t irnes 10.8 13.2 3.1 5.4 8.9 7.7 8.9 3.6 17.2 12.5 7.7 7.1 0 10.3 6.4 5.0 11.4 9.4
No 6.2 5.3 10.9 5.4 7.4 5.1 8.9 7.1 6.9 12.5 0 14.3
0 5.4
AGE 16-24 25-34 35-54 5 5+
SEX Ma1 e Fema 1e
65 76 64 37 203 39
GEOGRAPHICAL AREA 45 Wayne Oakland, Macomb , 56 Other D e t r o i t SMSA 29 Genesee, Ingharn, 24 Kent Other Central SMSA 26 Counties Other Suburban 14 SMSA Count ies Other Counties w l 11 Cities >15,000 37 Rural Counties INCOME Over $30,000 $20,000 - $30,000 $10,000 $20,000 Under $1 0,000 47 80 70 32
-
14.9 7.5 4.3 0
EMISSIONS INSPECTION ATTITUDE S t r o n g l y Favor Weakly Favor Weakly Oppose S t r o n g l y Oppose
TOTAL
58 40 33 94 242
89.7 77.5 72.7 91.5 84.3
5.2 17.5 18.2 2.1 8.7
5.2 5.0 9.1 6.4 7.0
TABLE 39 HOW ARE THE BRAKES CHECKED? (Question 31d) Percentages o f Brake Self-checkers Pull Wheels 60.7 60.7 50.5 46.2 Brake Fluid 10.7 11.5 5.8 11.5 Pedal Level 10.7 3.3 17.3 15.4 Test Drive 10.7 4.9 5.8 11.5 Visual Inspec tion Other 5.4 9.8 15.4 7.7 10.4 4.5 14.7 10.9 11.5 5.9 8.0
0
N
AGE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+
SEX Male Fema 1e GEOGRAPHICAL AREA Wayne Oakland, Macomb Other D e t r o i t SMSA Genesee, Ingham, Kent Other Central SMSA Counties Other Suburban SMSACounties Other Counties w/ Cities >15,000 Rural Counties INCOME Over $30,000 $20,000 - $30,000 $10,000 $20,000 Under $1 0,000
56 61 52 26
173 22
59.0 31.5 52.9 54.3 69.2 70.6 48.0 72.7 50.0 42.3 64.1 56-1 55.4 40.0
8.1 22.7 11.8 8.7 3.8 11.8 16.0 9.1 20.0 3.8 5.1 10.6 8.9 20.0
10.4 13.6 8.8 13.0 0 11.8 16.0 9.1 0 19.2 10.3 13.6 7.1 12.0
7.5 9.1 5.9 4.3 11.5 0 8.0 0 10.0 19.2 2.6 7.6 10.7 12.0
34 46 26
17 25 11 10 26 39 66 56 25
10.0 7.7 7.7 10.6 12.5 4.0
-
EMISSIONS INSPECTION ATTITUDE S t r o n g l y Favor Weakly Favor Weakly Oppose S t r o n g l y Oppose TOTAL
49 33 27 78
59.2 63.6 51.9 51.3
12.2 12.1 14.8 5.1 9.7
12.2 6.1 7.4 12.8 10.8
8.2 12.1 3.7 6.4 7.7
6.1 3.0 3.7 17.9 9.7
195 55.9
TABLE 40
Percentages
Do N o t Know
ARE EMISSIONS SYSTEMS WORKING PROPERLY? ( Q u e s t i o n 32)
-- .
N
Yes
No
Not Appl icab1 e
AGE 16-24 25-34 35-54
5%
SEX Ma1e Fema 1e GEOGRAPHICAL AREA Wayne Oakland, Macomb Other D e t r o i t SMSA Genesee, Ingham, Kent Other C e n t r a l SMSA Counties O t h e r Suburban SMSA Counties Other Counties w[ C i t i e s >15,000 Rural Counties INCOME Over $30,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $20,000 Under $10,000
169 215 255 759 408 390 178 176 82 93 79 50 41 100 173 235 242 103
82.2 80.0 85.5 91.8 83.8 85.4 83.1 85.2 78.0 87.1 86.1 82.0 87.8 88.0 85.5 88.1 84.3 73.8
5.3 8.4 4.7 2.5 8.3 3.6 7.9 6.3 8.5 2.2 2.5 12.0 7.3 3.0 9.8 3.0 6.6 7.8
0 0.5 0.4 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 1 .I 0 0 0 1.O 0 0 0.4 1 .O
9.5 11.2 9.4 5.7 7.8 10.5 9.0 8.5 13.4 9.7 11.4 6.0 4.9 8.0 4.6 8.9 8.7 17.5
-
EMISSIONS INSPECTION ATTITUDE S t r o n g l y Favor Weakly Favor Weakly Oppose S t r o n g l y Oppose TOTAL
246 134 97 239
85.8 86.6 82.5 84.9
6.5 6.0 8.2 6.7
0.4 0 0 0.4
7.3 7.5 9.3 7.9
799
84.6
6.0
0.3
9.1
TABLE 41
WHY ARE'THE EMISSIONS SYSTEMS BELIEVED NOT TO BE WORKING PROPERLY ( Q u e s t i o n 32a)
s
r
N
M i s s ~ n g tiiShh Burning V i s i b l e Bad Missing Main- Exhaust G ~ s Oil S " k 5 Smell P a r t s tenance System Consump Other
-
Percentages ~iik
AGE 16-24 25-34 35-54 5% SEX Ma1 e Ferna1e
12
0 3.3
8.3
41.7
8.3
16.7
0 0 7.7 0 3.1 0
16.7 37.5 23.1 0 28.1 15.4 41.7 0 28.6 0 0 20.0 66.7 25.0
0 6.3 16 13 7.7 7.7 0 25.0 4 0 6.3 32 13 7.7 15.4
0 31.3 15.4 30.8 25.0 50.0 6.3 34.4 15.4 38.5
12.5 12.5 0 7.7 0 0 9.4 0 12.5 7.7
GEOGRAPHICAL AREA 0 16.7 16.7 8.3 0 16.7 0 12 Wayne 0 9.1 18.2 54.5 9.1 9.1 0 11 Oakland, Macomb 0 0 0 0 42.9 14.3 14.3 O t h e r D e t r o i t SMSA 7 Genesee, Ingham, 2 0 50.0 050.0 0 0 0 Kent O t h e r C e n t r a l SMSA 1 0 0 0100.0 0 0 0 Counties O t h e r Suburban 0 20.0 5 20.0 0 0 2 0 . 0 20.0 SMSA C o u n t i e s O t h e r C o u n t i e s w/ 0 0 0 3 0 0 . O 0.33 C i t i e s >15,000 0 0 50.0 0 25.0 0 0 4 Rural Counties INCOME Over $30,000 $20,000-$30,000 $10,000 $20,000 Under $10,000 0 6.7 6 . 7 4 6 . 7 15 0 0 033.3 6 16 0 12.5 18.8 31.3 0 25.0 8 12.5 12.5 6.7 6.7 0 33.3 6.3 6.3 12.5 12.5 6.7 0 0 0
-
20.0 33.3 25.0 25.0
EMISSIONS INSPECTION ATTITUDE S t r o n g l y Favor 14 7 Weakly Favor 8 Weakly Oppose 16 S t r o n g l y Oppose TOTAL 45
7.1 14.3 14.3 0 14.3 0 0 0 0 0 6.3 12.5 2.2 8.9
21.4 42.9 25.0 50.0
7.1 7.1 14.3 28.6 12.5 25.0 0 0 6.7 11.1
7.1 0 0 0 2.2
21.4 0 37.5 31.3 24.4
8.9 35.6
- ..
TABLE 42 LEVEL OF EDUCATION (Question 34) Percentages
--
N
I
-
Grade None School
Some ~ i n i s h Four Some Finish High High Voc. Some Year Grad. Grad. School School School College College Work Course
AGE 16-24 25- 34 35-54 5 5+ SEX Ma1e Fema 1e GEOGRAPHICAL AREA Wayne 176 Oakland, Macomb 177 O t h e r D e t r o i t SMSA 84 Genesee, Ingharn, Kent 94 O t h e r C e n t r a l SMSA Counties 80 O t h e r Suburban 51 SMSA Counti es O t h e r Counties w i t h C i t i e s >15,000 41 Rural Counties 102
1
1
INCOME Over $30,000 $30,000 237 173 $20,000 $lo;ooo $20;000 245 1107 Under $1 0,000
I
-
1
EMISSIONS INSPECTION ATTITUDE S t r o n g l y Favor Weakly Favor Weakly Oppose S t r o n g l y Oppose TOTAL 805
I
0.1
3.9
14.4
32.4
4.0
25.5
9.8 3.1
6.8
APPENDIX B Respondent Comments on Inspection Programs Obviously the program ( i f begun) will find opponents, however, I feel there i s a need f o r such control, a t l e a s t environmentally. As with many such programs, enforcement will be d i f f i c u l t , b u t absolutely necessary. Perhaps the area of enforcement ought t o be addressed in subsequent questionnaires. Everybody i s inspected 2 . Those who pass inspection have no charge or a small refund ($2.00) t o reward them f o r being good conscientious citizens. 3. Those who violate are fined and given a time limit t o bring cars up t o code. Also, I l i k e the idea of a loan (14a), no more give-a-ways! 1.
................................................................... ...................................................................
All of the controls sound great but---taxes and money! People hate t o be -made to t o protect themselves from themselves. There will definitely have to be exceptions made f o r exempting some people. Regarding the point of passing a law prohibiting people from using regular gas in a no-lead gas cac. .mechanically i t i s not a good idea. In time i t would hurt t h e i r engine. The prices should be somewhat comparable also, b u t t h a t ' s the way i t goes. I honestly be1 ieve i f a1 1 these inspection laws were p u t t o the people on a ballot i t would be voted down, so we'll see how we are represented by those in higher places.
...................................................................
...................................................................
Many of the questions were answered "no opinion" because there was not provided an option t h a t would express opposi tion t o mandatory emission inspections. Had there been such an opinion, I would have ci rcled i t.
The condition of the economy, nor m feelin$s on more government controls y i s favorable a t the time. I t i s also m opinion t h a t this could become another y "law", poorly written and certainly d i f f i c u l t t o enforce, i . e . , toothless. If not done well, i f a t all , only the honest and conscientious would be affected and they probably need the controls l e a s t . I t would be those finding loopholes or enforcement weaknesses and clunkers that need i t most and effected l e a s t . This may also be true on the safety inspections, b u t I feel the potential gain ^in correctirig stupid mistakes arid saving lives i s worth f t .
I have worked in law enforcement f o r five years. I a a s t a t e c e r t i f i e d m mechanic f o r the State of Michigan. I do not believe a f a i r and honest inspection program can be managed by private garages. I think i t also d i f f i c u l t t o enforce. Above a l l , when you make a program mandatory you must have an overseeing power t o keep i t honest. I would support a s t a t e program i f i t takes t h i s i n t o consideration. I do not believe t h a t we in outstate Michigan should be pendlized f o r the a i r pollution in our b i g c i t i e s .
...................................................................
...................................................................
...................................................................
I feel a t the price of our license plates and drivers licenses, there should be enough in this fund to pay, for any inspections t o be made.
...................................................................
I believe a motor vehicle inspection law i s unnecessary in view of the limited number of vehicles affected. With the vast number of vehicles on the highways of Michigan, inspection even on an annual basis would be a major undertaking and a very expensive burden on already heavily tax burdened people. I would consider a vehicle inspection law a general nuisance to the public and the s t a t e . Please avoid such legislation.
.....................................................................
1 . The inspection would be nice i f the S t a t e of Michigan can afford them without additional taxes hidden o r otherwise. I am f o r safety and emission inspections only t h a t way. 2 . I d i d n ' t know that a i r pollution was that much of a problem. To have to spend large sums of money t o police our cars,I think only a few people destroy t h e i r catalytic converters, and those who are determined will not be stopped by inspections. Plus, i f certain cars are exempted, such as some older cars, then why bother t o make people be inspected a t a1 l ? 3. Perhaps i f "no-lead" gasoline wasn't so much more expensive than "regular" I'm sure no one would destroy the equipment on t h e i r car t o control emissions deliberately, b u t when you can save up t o ten cents a gallon, i t i s probably terrpting i f money i s short as in these inflationary times.
o Ticket the guilty. D not burden the driver or the taxpayers with more y bureaucracy. Manufacturers should build a car with these facts in mind. B the time an inspection system i s s e t up most older cars will be off the road. Don't burden every driver f o r the carelessness and laxity of some.
1.
....................................................................
New and used car dealers should be required t o have vehicles inspected as part of preparation f o r delivery t o purchaser. This ensures inspection of a certain percentage of automobiles on an annual basis and fosters f a i r dealing in the used vehicle market. 2 . I t would appear that no law enforcement agency in the metropolitan Detroit area presently enforces noise regulations as t o motorcycles. Are they too d i f f i c u l t t o enforce and prove in court? 3. I feel t h a t the pub1 i c service campaign conducted by She1 1 Oil over the past couple of years, both in printed and audio-visual media, has been quite valuable in getting the energy conservation mssage across to the american public. I would suggest a similar common sense-informational presentation of any inspection and pollution program promulgated by the s t a t e .
....................................................................
I have 1 ived in Florida for five years and have experienced the inspection stations. I d o n ' t l i k e the waiting, the long l i n e s , snobby attendants, $3 fee, noise inspections o r extensive steering inspections. The idea of pol 1 ution inspections and vehicle inspections are good ones i f they are State funded and we1 1 organized. Also, I feel they shouldn't be as s t r i c t as Florida's inspections especially noise.
I f we c l e a r up our plants in industry the problem could be cleared up a t a lower cost t o taxpayers. W as a social have greater problems to solve a t t h i s e time. The cost of t h i s program i s too high f o r the results that we will receive. Spend our tax money .in other ways where the results are greater.
.....................................................................
....................................................................
I would l i k e t o see a i r pollution and safety inspections done t o a l l vehicles. I f the s t a t e government were t o handle this i t will mean many more people hired t o do the inspection and the paper work, which will include many "goof-off's" being hired a t the taxpayers expense.
1. A t this stage, I think we must be careful of putting t i g h t limiting r e s t r i c tions on emissions until s c i e n t i s t s come up with a way t o solve pollution problems in car engines. Emission systems should not decrease the efficiency of the engine, thus consuming more fuel. 2 . I also feel cars, as well as trucks and motorcycles, should be required t o have good rear mud flapa to keep stones from being thrown a t windshields, which i s really becoming frequent. I t h i n k that t h i s plan you have here would cost the American taxpayer a l o t of money and I don't think the public will go f o r the idea, especially e with the gas shortage upon us. W need car inspections as sluch, b u t the average american could not afford to pay from his own pocket w i t h the economy such as i t is.
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
Having lived in Nw Jersey where s the t a t e operates a free vehicle ine spection program, and Virginia, where private stations operate the inspection e program f o r a $2.50 charge, I see two different views. The Nw Jersey operation i s smoothly operated and seemingly honest; your car passes or i t doesn't. In Virginia we had a car inspected a t a station known f o r i t s oversight and the car passed when i t really should not have. I t had bad tread and non-working headlights. However, in Virginia, when your car i s inspected and i t doesn't pass, the station can correct the problem right there. Therefore, I endorse the private stations running the s t a t e regulated and 1 icensed program.
I feel that we do not need the auto inspection as much as we need more law enforcement. Therefore, I feel t h a t instead of forming a new agency, the money should be appropriated to the law and policing of the autombi les and hi ghways .
....................................................................
Emission systems are fine, b u t just think how much trouble automobile manufacturers have had just trying t o reach standards t o s e l l the cars. If the auto firms had t o guarantee emission standards on a l l cars sold f o r a six month period, they may be in financial trouble similar t o Chrysler's. Now, i f the above would be true, and I think Ralph Nader would agree, how costly do you t h i n k the proposal would be t o individuals? I don't think i t would be inexpensive and in the true sense of the word i t would be very costly.
I t h i n k the new emissions smell worse than the o l d ones. You get headaches f a s t e r . Also, I think they take more gas and engine problems. Right now gas seems t o be the biggest problem.
...................................................................
....................................................................
would be sufficient. Also, i t would keep cost a t a minimum. Spot checks are effective. The motorist should be responsible f o r having his vehicle meet requirements. The problem of noisy vehicles should be handled by area police agencies.
.................................................................... I be1 ieve mobil inspection stations which change t h e i r locations regularly
I a strongly opposed to any additional fees, taxes or government regum lations. I feel the E . P . A . has caused the current recession, added billions of dollars t o the cost of consumer products and should be dissolved. Further, I feel t h i s questionnaitbe i s a waste of time and taxpayer's money.
**i**-*.*........
I t i s m opinion t h a t the general public i s paying an excessive amount y out of t h e i r pockets f o r a i r pollution control right now. This occurs by the regulation placed on the automotive industry in terms of standards, which are neither cost effective nor commensurate with avai 1able technology. Because o f the forced timing the cost of these vehicle improvements have been excessive and the absolute gain, small. The resultant a i r quality gains are, I f e e l , more than o f f s e t by the cost increases on cars for these items and $fire penalty on innovative technology, such a s , diesel engines where particultes are a problem in the upcoming years. In summary, I feel t h a t much of the a i r pollution assurance has been b u i l t in and the average l i f e span of cars are such that the older, d i r t i e r cars are constantly being replaced.
I feel the pollution controls are not now helping. They are causing increased gasoline consumption and poor operation of most U.S. vehicles. I also feel the sulphur gas being emitted cannot be healthful. Are we exchanging one kind of pollution f o r another?
.................................................
..................................................................
Why not s e t up a spot check f o r those with oil burning, unsafe cars, and have them fixed o r get another, o r keep them off the road.
..................................................................
There should be a comprehensive safety and motor inspection established which will conserve gas and eliminate dangerous and costly vehicles from our roads. This program should be paid for by the individual auto owners. Special provisions should be made f o r the poor and disabled. This program i s tong overdue.
I think the above questionnaire about pollution and safety inspections should be adopted as soon as possible. The safety inspection should s t a r t now.
.................................................................. ..................................................................
The f i r s t concern now should be saving gasoline, ( f u e l ) . If a motor i s running a t i t s top efficiency and getting i t s best m.p.g, that should be enough. I f some a i r pollution i s s t i l l present we should allow i t . W should use fewer e heavy trucks, and move freight by other means, such as railroads, boats and pipe1 ines.
..................................................................
After working in the State of Florida Auto Registration Office, I know adding more requirements will cause confusion to many. Be sure t h a t employees are schooled we1 1 so a1 1 can g i ve basic information on these things and not give the people the run-a-round. Dpposition to the inspection are: 1. Payola can buy a s t i c k e r from some employees. 2 . Garages will do unnecessary repairs in the name of inspection necessity. 3. Poorer people will get the b l u n t . Not people on welfare, b u t those who are really trying to make i t on t h e i r own and don't call for help. 4. A long as the insurance covany c a n ' t use i t f o r additional fee making. s If inspections do come. I f yearly registering becomes a birthday month thing, the auto inspection should be iln adjacent t o registering. Inspection c e r t i f i c a t e t o be shown along w i t h proof of insurance a t time of registration yearly. (Florida did not do i t this way and many people forget t o get i t inspected a t the proper time, g i v i n g the police something else t o do.)
..................................................................
I feel the safety program i s very good and does get a l o t of vehicles off the road that are in great need of repair.
..................................................................
Some of your questions l.eave l i t t l e room f o r a clear choice. Public policy should be judged by ( a t l e a s t j three main standards: 1 ) Efficiency, 2 ) Liberty, and 3) Equity. The equity engendered in many of your proposals i s regressive: i . e . , poor people would be h i t harder by the costs involved. The efficiency factor that i s involved in the proposed bureauy cracy i s horrendous. Lastly, these proposals s t r i p more of m liberty from me. I attempt to properly maintain m vehicles in the i n t e r e s t of fuel cony e servation and operating efficiency. Even so, I resent bureaucrats t e l l ing m have t h a t I now - to do t h i s .
..................................................................
I'm in favor of an emissions inspection as long as the people doing the inspecting are not also doing the repairing. This would lessen the chance of being ripped off by the service stations or by the s t a t e .
..................................................................
1. I seriously believe t h a t industrial pollution i s a greater contributor than automobiles. 2 . I a cynical about any real improvements. There are existing laws supposedly m regulating noise (vehicle). Enforcement has been minimal. Wy expect new h laws to work better? 3. Vehicle emissions reduction may be desirable b u t fuel economy i s more c r i t i c a l . They counteract each other.
..................................................................
I t was very d i f f i c u l t f o r m to answer your questions which were based e on the premise of reducing a i r pollution. How much are you suggesting that should be reduced? Would i t be a significant reduction required f o r public heal t h ? With the current national concern on the elimination of our energy problem and emphasis on returning t o coal as a major substitute resource, i t seems to m that motor-vehicle pollution problems by comparison are infinitesimal. e I drive approximately 35,000 miles per year and quite frankly, i f there i s substantial motor-vehicle p o l 1 ution about me, which i s detrimental t o the pub1 ic health, I cannot visually detect i t , except on rare occasions, such as bus and truck emissions, which may or may not be a health detriment. I a really in favor of ridding a i r pollution and having motor vehicle m e inspections, b u t the money for these always f a l l s on the taxpayer. W c a n ' t make i t now with everything going up b u t the wages. Another tax increase would wipe us out. So really, even though I am in favor of i t for our own safety, I a against i t because of the expense. m
...................................................................
While emission control i s important t o our environment, I feel that an inspection program for safety of vehicles i s more important a t this time. I have seen f a r too many vehicles in a s t a t e of total disrepair on the road and feel that the owners are endangering t h e i r own and the lives of others by being allowed t o operate said vehicles.
................................................................................
I think that the #1 problem that you should be worried about i s gas mileage. If you take emission control devices off a car and p u t on a good carburetor you would have better mileage. I think mileage f i r s t , pollution second, so how about working on both a t the same time. I feel very strongly about having both pollution and safety inspections, very strongly! This i s the "motor city" and we're one of the few states that doesn't have "any inspections." Myself, I favor both inspections every six months as i t was in Virginia when I was i n the service there. I t was a real pleasure to drive most of the time, instead of a damn headache as i t i s to. drjve in Detroit a l l the time. The inspections would eliminate so many cars in this c i t y that the rush hour t r a f f i c would be drastically cut and so would gas consumption. In m y opinion about 45% of the cars on the road in t h i s s t a t e are JUNK and definitely u n f i t t o be on the road and definitely unfit t o drive! So l e t ' s completely eliminate t h i s small percent of junks on the road w i t h very, very s t r i c t inspections every six months and very high fines f o r people who drive t h e i r junks despite not passing t h e i r inspection.
I think i t would be a mistake t o s t a r t an expensive program in Michigan when other s t a t e s are stopping theirs. What about the poor people who c a n ' t afford t o drive now. How will you stop the dishonest inspections from grabbing money and passing friends by? Wo i s going t o pay for a program 1 i ke this? h
.........................,............,......,.*..,..,..,,,.,,,,,,...,,,..,
.........................................................................
I'm t i r e d of the average middle income working person getting stuck with a1 1 of the expense. N matter how we answer the questions we'll get the o expense one way or another. Please whatever you decide t o do, use our money wisely, get the best use of i t possible. Thank you and may God Bless everyone in our government and help them t o use wisdom in whatever they decide. I don't think a i r pollution from automobiles i s a problem in Berrien County. I be1 ieve that centers could be s e t u p t o help reduce accidents due to faulty equipment. B u t I think t h a t people are the -cause of auto main accidents not the vehicle i t s e l f . Centers should be s e t u p t o teach people Driving Defensively t o Stay A1 ive! I don't really feel a i r pollution i s a great problem in Michigan other than a few industrial areas. Our existing laws on vehicle pollution are enough to cope with problems - i f enforced by local police agencies.
.............................................................................
.............................................................................
.............................................................................
.............................................................................
I'm sure s t a t e operated inspection centers would do the best job and would be free of influence; however, the cost of setting u p such a system with a1 1 the side costs would be huge. If i t had to be done w might as well pay for i t and consider i t e part of the cost of driving. If the oil situation continues to get worse i t might solve the whole problem for us.
I am really a l l for car safety and pollution checks. I t ' s just that I c a n ' t afford either. I c a n ' t even afford t o drive m car in safe running y condition.
.............................................................................
In reference t o the question on locations of the proposed inspection stations, I believe that they should be within a certain radius for the purpose of making them convenient f o r persons in the community. I t could be done by appointing certain service stations, in an area, w i t h the duty of inspecting vehicles for the s t a t e . In big c i t i e s , the stations can be appointed to serve members of a precinct, ( o r the general pub1 i c ) , and in rural areas, by d i s t r i c t o r county. In other words, place them in a location that people can drive to using the l e a s t amount of energy. Mass transportation may be another a1 ternative, ( f o r persons in 1 arge c i t i e s ) however, i t must be effective and not too costly for tax payers. In m opinion, I think one i s needed in Detroit. y W have a foundry in our c i t y which has pollution control installed e and I work right next to i t and there i s more pollution coming from i t than the cars in our area. I think that these t e s t s should include everybody; factories, foundries and small companies.
...............................................................................
If the s t a t e wants to do something about a i r pollution they should begin with the factories. The pollution they p u t out doesn't even compare w i t h that of cars. They clean u p the cars and we're s t i l l going to die from Ford Rouge Plant, Great Lakes, and Wyandotte Chemical. These are only a few in m area. I see what they have done t o Lake Erie and the Detroit River y also. That i s my drinking water.
...........................................................
...............
These type polls should be publicized as t o inform the public whether or not vehicle inspections are preferred by majority, having taken time t o answer t h i s questionnaire.
.............................................................................
.......................................*..................................
Our problem i s affecting a l l of us and i t ' s not getting any better as the days go on. I feel there i s a drastic need t o eliminate t h i s crucial problem. Vehicle emissions reduction may be desirable b u t fuel economy i s more c r i t i c a l . They counteract each other. Spot safety checks are ok - mandatory ones. NOT
I think i t ' s a very good idea t o stop o r a t l e a s t slow down pollution. I know of several c i t i e s where the whole situation i s already out of control.
.............................................................................
.............................................................................
A comprehensive safety and motor inspection t o conserve gas and eliminate dangerous vehicles .should be established and i t should be paid for by auto owners.
.............................................................................
I do consider yearly inspections with inspection stickers on cars inspected vital . That way any unsafe car would be i l legal t o operate on the road. This i s very effective in Texas f o r example, where I 've lived previously.
.............................................................................
...........................................................................
Should re-evaluate the catalytic converters in the light of the gas problems.
APPENDIX C The Telephone Questionnaire and Respondent Letter
STATE OF MICHIGAN
WILLIAM G . M I L L I K E N , G O V E R N O R
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING, 425 WEST O T T A W A PHONE [phone] POST O F F I C E B O X 30050, LANSING, MICHIGAN
JOHN P. WOODFORD, DIRECTOR
Your name has been randomly s e l e c t e d f r o m a s t a t e w i d e sample o f Michigan d r i v e r s f o r a p u b l i c o p i n i o n survey c o n c e r n i n g a i r p o l l u t i o n and a p o s s i b l e motor v e h i c l e i n s p e c t i o n program i n Michigan. W i t h i n a few days you w i l l r e c e i v e a c a l l from a t e l e p h o n e i n t e r v i e w e r a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f Michigan.
I am w r i t i n g t o you now because many people 1 i k e t o be informed ahead of t i n e t h a t t h e y have been chosen t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n such a r e s e a r c h survey. The i n t e r v i e w should t a k e about t e n minutes, Ifby chance you r e c e i v e t h e telephone c a l l a t an i n c o n v e n i e n t time, p l e a s e t e l l t h e i n t e r v i e w e r and he o r she w i l l be happy t o c a l l back l a t e r ,
Motor v e h i c l e exhausts c o n t r i b u t e t o a i r p o l l u t i o n which sometimes occurs i n p a r t s of Michigan. To reduce a i r p o l l u t i o n t o a c c e p t a b l e h e a l t h l e v e l s , t h e f e d e r a l government has r e q u i r e d engines i n r e c e n t model c a r s t o be equipped w i t h c a t a l y t i c c o n v e r t e r s o r c t h e r d e v i c e s . When p r o p e r l y maintained, t h e s e exhaust emissions c o n t r o l d e v i c e s have g r e a t l y reduced a u t o m o t i v e a i r p o l l u t i o n .
In s p i t e o f t h e s e Smprovements, some areas o f Michigan w i 11 p r o b a b l y n o t r e a c h t h e f e d e r a l a i r p o l l u t i o n standards by t h e t a r g e t y e a r of 1982. Therefore, some areas of M i c h i g a n w i l l be r e q u i r e d t o have a y e a r l y v e h i c l e emissions i n s p e c t i o n progran t o i d e n t i f y p o l l u t i n g v e h i c l e s and t o r e q u i r e owners t o b r i n g them t o t h e minimum emissions standards f o r v e h i c l e s of t h a t model y e a r . I n p r e l i m i n a r y p l a n n i n g f o r such a program, t h e Department of T r a n s p o r t a t i o n i s a l s o c o n s i d e r i n g t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of making t h e program a p p l i c a b l e statewide, and a l s o i n c l u d i n g s a f e t y and n o i s e i n s p e c t i o n s i n t h e program.
I n o r d e r t o deveiop an i n s p e c t i o n program p l a n which b e s t s u i t s t h e d r i v e r s of Michigan, we need y o u r advice. T h i s i s a u n i q u e o p p o r t u n i t y f o r you t o i n f l u e n c e governmental d e c i s i o n s which w i l l a f f e c t you. P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s survey i s v o l u n t a r y , b u t I hope you w i l l be w i l l i n g t o answer t h e i n t e r v i e w e r ' s q u e s t i o n s
GREAT LAKE STATE
.An Equal Opportunity Employer
when you are c a l l e d . Even if you do n o t have d e f i n i t e o p i n i o n s on some of t h e s e issues, we would a l s o l i k e t o know t h a t so t h e survey r e p o r t can a c c u r a t e l y r e p r e s e n t t h e a t t i t u d e s of a1 1 groups of Michigan d r i v e r s . Please n o t e t h a t y o u r answers w i l l be t r e a t e d c o m p l e t e l y c o n f i d e n t i a l l y . Ifyou have any f u r t h e r q u e s t i o n s about t h i s survey, please f e e l f r e e t o c o n t a c t t h e P r o j e c t D i r e c t o r , Dr. A r t h u r Wolfe, a t [phone].
Director
\J
Highway S a f e t y R e s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e U n i v e r s i t y of Michigan A p r i l 1979 TELEPHONE QUESTIONNAIRE Michigan V e h i c l e I n s p e c t i o n Program
ID N O , County
[1-31
[ 4-5
I
Hello, t h i s i s a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y of Michigan i n City Size Ann Arbor, I ' m c a l l i n g you a s p a r t of a s u r v e y o f Michigan d r i v e r s c o n c e r n i n g a i r p o l l u t i o n and a p o s s i b l e s t a t e motor v e h i c l e i n s p e c t i o n program, You s h o u l d have r e c e i v e d a l e t t e r a b o u t t h i s s u r v e y from t h e s t a t e D i r e c t o r of T r a n s p o r t a t i o n . Do you remember g e t t i n g t h i s l e t t e r ? 1 YES 2 lio
[91
[ 101
1, F i r s t , have you p e r s o n a l l y e v e r been b o t h e r e d by a i r p o l l u t i o n i n t h e
c o u n t y where you l i v e ? YiS
5 RO+go
to ~ 2 )
---
-
l a , I n t h e p a s t y e a r would you s a y you have been b o t h e r e d a l o t , some, n o t much, o r n o t a t a l l ?
!
I
I
p -
1 A LOT
2 SOME
3 N T MUCH O
4 N T AT ALL O
2 . How w i d e s p r e a d do you t h i n k t h e a i r p o l l u t i o n problem i n Michigan i s ? Would you s a y t h a t a i r p o l l u t i o n i s a s e r i o u s problem nowhere i n Michigan, o r o n l y i n a few b i g c i t i e s , o r t h r o u g h o u t s o u t h e r n Michigan, o r a l l o v e r t h e s t a t e ?
1 NOWHERE
2 B I G CITIES
3 SOUTHERN MICH,
4 STATEWIDE
8 DK, NO OPILION
[12]
3 , You p r o b a b l y know t h a t u s i n g r e g u l a r g a s i n c a r s d e s i g n e d f o r no-lead g a s i n c r e a s e s t h e a i r p o l l u t i o n from s u c h c a r s , Do you f a v o r o r oppose a
law p r o h i b i t i n g m o t o r i s t s from u s i n g r e g u l a r g a s i n no-lead c a r s ?
1 FAVOR
2 OPPOSE
8..DK,
NO. OPINION
4 , (As mentioned i n t h e l e t t e r , ) t h e s t a t e i s t h i n k i n g a b o u t r e d u c i n g a i r p o l l u t i o n by s e t t i n g up y e a r l y i n s p e c t i o n s of l I i c h i g a n motor v e h i c l e s t o t e s t t h e i r e x h a u s t e m i s s i o n s and t o r e q u i r e owners t o f i x t h o s e e n g i n e s which a r e c a u s i n g t o o much a i r p o l l u t i o n , I n t r y i n g t o cieci.de i f s u c h a v e h i c l e i n s p e c t i o n program i s d e s i r a b l e , one h a s t o t h i n k a b o u t t h e v a l u e of r e d u c i n g a i r p o l l u t i o n a g a i n s t t h e t o t a l program c o s t s i n t i m e , t r a v e l , i n s p e c t i o n f e e s , and r e p a i r s , What i s your g e n e r a l o p i n i o n ? Do you f a v o r o r oppose a r e q u i r e d e m i s s i o n s i n s p e c t i o n program i n your c o u n t y ?
II
1 STRONGLY
1 NO PARKING
4a. Do you f e e l s t r o n g l y a b o u t t h a t , o r n a t . v e r y s t r o n g l y ?
2 NOT VERY STRONGLY
.
iI
115)
5 , Another i d e a which h a s been mentioned f o r r e d u c i n g a i r p o l l u t i o n i n some p l a c e s i s t o p r o h i b i t p a r k i n g i n c e r t a i n a r e a s w i t h heavy a i r p o l l u t i o n i n o r d e r t o encourage p e o p l e t o u s e p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t a t i o n . I f you had t o c h o o s e between a no p a r k i n g program and a n e m i s s i o n s t e s t i n g program, which would you p r e f e r ?
2 EMISSIONS INSPECTION
3 NEITHER
4 BOTH
8 DK, NO OPINION
[16]
HSRI C'-M
Telephone (?uest i o n n a i r e , Page 2
6 , I n t h i n k i n g a b o u t a p o s s i b l e e x h a u s t e m i s s i o n s i n s p e c t i o n program f o r Hichigan t h e r e a r e a number of d e c i s i o n s which would have t o b e made a b o u t &OW t h e program rnisht work, One c h o i c e h a s t o do w i t h l i c e n s i n g a l a x p e number of p r i v a t e g a r a g e s and s e r v i c e s t a t i o n s t o do t h e i n s p e c t i o n s , o r w i t h s e t t i n g up a l i m i t e d number of new s t a t e s t d t i o n s t o do t h e i n s p e c t i o n s , Do you t h i n k i t would b e b e t t e r t o s e t up s p e c i a l s t a t e i n s p e c t i o n s t a t i o n s , o r t o l i c e n s e p r i v a t e p a r a g e s t o do t h e i n s p e c t i o n s ? A g o t o 47) iiOU Dh, RO I)PINa [17-191 1 STAiE STATIONS 2 PRIVATE GARAGES ANU S L R V l C E STATIOhS L - . . - ------ --. .--I 1 6 a , Why do you f e e l t h a t way? 118,191
i
I
7 , If a n e m i s s i o n s i n s p e c t i o n program i s s e t u p , do you f a v o r o r oppose
i n c l u d i n g b u s e s and l a r g e t r u c k s i n t h e program?
1 FAVOR
2 OPPOSE
8 DK, NO O P I N I O N
[ 201
8 , I f a n e m i s s i o n s i n s p e c t i o n program is s e t up, do you t h i n k i t . . s h o u l d be
r e q u i r e d s t a t e w i d e , o r o n l y i n t h e a r e a s w i t h t h e w o r s t p o l l u t i o n problems?
!I
C
1 STATEWIDE
2 WORST AREAS
L
80 DK, NO OPINION--)(go
P
t o Q9)
-
-
--
.
8 6 , Do you f e e l s t r o n g l y a b o u t t h a t , o r n o t v e r y s t r o n g l y ?
-1
1
[21-221
1 STRONGLY
2 NOT VERY STRONGLY
[22]
9 , What do you t h i n k would be a r e a s o n a b l e l o n g e s t d i s t a n c e f o r someone i n your a r e a t o have t o d r i v e f o r a n e m i s s i o n s i n s p e c t i o n ?
!iII,ES
98 D K , 1;O O P I h I O N
10, What do you t h i n k would be a r e a s o n a b l e l o n g e s t time f o r sonleone t o spend a t t h e i n s p e c t i o n s t a t i o n w a i t i n g and g e t t i n g i n s p e c t e d ?
11, What do you t h i n k would be a r e a s o n a b l e i n s p e c t i o n f e e , o r do you t h i n k t h e i n s p e c t i o n s h o u l d b e p a i d f o r by o t h e r s t a t e f u n d s ?
$ -
DOLLARS
00 FREE, OTHER FUN1)S
98 1)K, NO OPIN1OL.I
1 2 , If a v e h i c l e d i d n o t meet t h e e m i s s i o n s s t a n d a r d s f o r v e h i c l e s of i t s age and t y p e , what do you t h i n k would be a r e a s o n a b l e l e n g t h of time t o g i v e t h e owner t o g e t t h e e m i s s i o n s system working p r o p e r l y ?
-UAY
S
98 DK, NO O P I N I O N
HSRI
U-M
Telephone Q u e s t i o n n a i r e , Page 3
1 3 , I t h a s been s u g g e s t e d t h a t some o l d e r c a r s s h o u l d be exempted from h a v i n g t o r e p a i r t h e i r e m i s s i o n s s y s t e m s i f t h e r e p a i r c o s t was a l a r g e p e r c e n t a g e of t h e v e h i c l e ' s v a l u e , Do vou f a v o r o r oppose t h i s i d e a ?
200 OPPOSC-b(eo t o 014)
800 DK, NO OPINIOii--)(go
t o (,14)
1.1
132-341
1
tlre r e p a i r c o s t be o r d e r t o b e exempted?
.--
i
[33-341
!L.-
-
--
(at least)
5
98 D K , hO O P l h I O h -- - --
1 4 , I f a v e h i c l e owner c o u l d n o t a f f o r d t o pay t h e c o s t s of r e p a i r i n g tile e m i s s i o n s s y s t e m , do you t h i n k t h e v e h i c l e s h o u l d be exempted from tile e m i s s i o n s r e q u i r e m e n t s , o r s h o u l d t h e s t a t e s e t up a s p e c i a l fund f o r t h e r e p a i r of s u c h v e h i c l e s , o r s h o u l d t h e v e h i c l e be t a k e n o f f t h e r o a d , o r what? 1 0 EXFMPTED (go t o 015)
2 STATE FUND
30 TKEh OFF KOAD+(go
t o Q15)
40 OTHER:
80 i)hlc(go ti? . I 5 . ..- .<
7
2-
4;c
,
t c . -:
-
--
-L
--
- - -.- - .
1
1 4 a . Should t h i s b e a l o a n fund which t h e owner h a s t o pay b a c k , o r should i t be a w e l f a r e g r a n t ?
-
1-----------LOAN
2 WELFARE GRANT
3 DEPENDS - 8 DK, NO OPIIU'ION --.--.
-
--.-
[361
1 5 , Who do you t h i n k c o u l d be t r u s t e d more t o do a p r o p e r e m i s s i o n s t e s t , inspectors i n state-operated s t a t i o n s o r inspectors i n state-license: g a r a g e s and s e r v i c e s t a t i o n s , o r d o n ' t you t h i n k t h e r e would b e any difference?
1 STATE INSPECTORS
2 PRIVATE INSPECTORS
3 NO D1FPCKEt;CE
b d:,,
:,a
JPih,
[jiJ
1 6 , Now I have a q u e s t i o n a b o u t s a f e t y i n s p e c t i o n s , A s you p r o b a b l y know, many o t h e r s t a t e s r e q u i r e r e g u l a r s a f e t y i n s p e c t i o n s of t h e i r r e g i s t e r e a v e h i c l e s f o r s u c h components as l i g h t s , b r a k e s , s t e e r i n g , and t i r e s , IJO you f a v o r o r oppose s u c h a r e g u l a r s a f e t y i n s p e c t i o n program f o r t i i c h i g a n ?
1 FAVOR
i --
/ II
80 DK, NO OPINION+(go t o Q17) -. . - - - --1 6 n . Do vou f e e l s t r o n g l y a b o u t t h a t , o r n o t v e r y s t r o n g l y ?
L
2 OPPOSC
[3b-39j
1
I
_k
1 STRONGLY
2 N T VERY STRONGLY. O
i .
I
[39]
1 7 . Some s t a t e s have combined programs of i n s p e c t i o n f o r b o t h s a f e t y and e m i s s i o n s ? Do vou f a v o r o r oppose s u c h a combined program f o r ? l i c h i g a n ?
1 FAVOR
2 OPPOSE
8 DK, NO OPINION
[401
1 8 , A com1)ined e m i s s i o n s and s a f e t y i r i s p e c t i o n would c o s t soniewhat more t l ~ a n a n e m i s s i o n s i n s p e c t i o n a l o n e , What do you t h i n k would b e a r e a s o n a l ) l e combined i n s p e c t i o n f e e , o r d o you t h i n k t h e combined i n s p e c t i o n s h o u l d be p a i d f o r by o t h e r s t a t e f u n d s ?
$ -
DOLLARS
00 FREE, OTHER EZlPiDS
98 DK, NO OPIKIOK
[41-421
IISRI u-11
Telephone Q u e s t i o n n a i r e , Page 4
1 9 , How much do you t h i n k r e q u i r e d v e h i c l e s a f e t y i n s p e c t i o n s would r e d u c e motor v e h i c l e a c c i d e n t s i n Y i c h i g a n : a l o t , some, o r n o t nucli?
1 A LOT
2 SOME
3 K T 1.IUCII O
8 Dk, NO OPIXION
[431
20, I t h a s a l s o b e e n s u g g e s t e d t h a t a n i n s p e c t i o n program s h o u l d i n c l u d e t e s t i n g of v e h i c l e n o i s e and s h o u l d make any n o i s y v e h i c l e s be f i x e d , 2 0 you f a v o r o r oppose r e q u i r e d s t a t e t e s t i n g of motor v e h i c l e n o i s e ?
1 FAVOR
2 OPPOSE
80 D K , NO OPIt.JIONl)(go t o 021)
[44-451
II-1
- .- .- ---. 1 STRONGLY 2 NOT VERY STRONGLY
.-
--- .
20a, no you f e e l s t r o n g l y a b o u t t h a t , o r n o t v e r y s t r o n g l y ?
---
--
1
1451
21, Are you w e r d i s t u r b e d by t h e n o i s e made by i n d i v i d u a l n o i s y v e h i c l e s ?
77
NO-+~;O
t o 022)
-- -
I Zla.
j
,
---What t y p e s of v e h i c l e s d i s t u r b you t h e most?
1 TRUCKS
2 YOTORCYCLES
3 HOT RODS
4 SIiOIdMOBILES
88 Dl;, :.O:;L
[46,47]
5 OTHER:
22, How s t r i c t l y do you t h i n k s t a t e r u l e s on motor v e h i c l e n o i s e s h o u l d b e e n f o r c e d : v e r v s t r i c t l y , somewhat s t r i c t l y , o r n o t v e r y s t r i c t l ; : ?
1 VERY STRICTLY
2 SOIIEWHAT STRICTLY
3 N T VERY STRICTLY O
8 Dl:,
Ol I., ,
.
-:,
7
2 3 , Another i d e a which h a s b e e n s u g g e s t e d i s t h a t t h e s t a t e s h o u l d s e t u p s p e c i a l d i a g n o s t i c c e n t e r s where m o t o r i s t s c o u l d pay t o have problems w i t h t h e i r motor v e h i c l e s d i a g n o s e d by i m p a r t i a l c e r t i f i e d m e c h a n i c s b e f o r e t a k i n g them t o p r i v a t e g a r a g e s f o r r e p a i r , Such a c e n t e r c o u l d a l s o be used by p e o p l e buving a new o r used c a r t o check f o r d e f e c t s , L)o you f a v o r o r oppose t h e s t a t e set tin^ up s u c h d i a g n o s t i c c e n t e r s ?
1 FAVOR
2 OPPOSE
8 DK, NO OPINION
2 4 , Sow I have a few background q u e s t i o n s a b o u t your household and i t s v e h i c l e s . liow many l i c e n s e d d r i v e r s a r e t h e r e i n y o u r h o u s e h o l d ?
25, Iiow many p e r s o n a l motor v e h i c l e s of what t y p e s a r e owned by your liouseiiold'? CARS**ea*,*a*, VANS, PICKUPS, JECPS a 1MOTORCYCLES, 1 ,I a
OTliEK:
.
26, Khat i s t h e model y e a r of t h e ( o l d e s t ) v e h i c l e ?
HSRI
U-M
Telephone Q u e s t i o n n a i r e , Page 5
27. Would you s a y t h i s v e h i c l e i s i n s a f e o p e r a t i n g c o n d i t i o n now, o r t h a t t h e r e a r e some s a f e t y components which need r e p a i r ?
100 SAFE fiOW4(80 t o (228)
---
-
--
PAIRS Rk iiEEDED
800 DK, CAN'T SXY+go
--.
--
t o 428)
[57-5:.
.
27a. What components a r e t h e s e ?
1
--
[
-
-
-
--. -
: -
, 3 > , -7:.
28, Khat do vou t h i n k a r e t h e main t y p e s of v e h i c l e d e f e c t s which sometimes contribute t o accidents?
[61),61,62]
29, IIave you e v e r had o c c a s i o n t o u s e r e g u l a r g a s o l i n e i n a v e h i c l e d e s i g n e a t o u s e no-lead g a s o l i n e ?
1 YES
5 NO
8 DK, N T SURE O
30, How c l o s e l y would you s a v you f o l l o w your mwner's manual f o r r e g u l a r s e r v i c e and maintenance of your v e h i c l e ( s ) : v e r y c l o s e l y , somewhat closely, or not very closely?
1 VERY CLOSELY
2 SOMEWHAT CLOSELY
300000 N T VERY CLOSLLS+(go O
t o ~ 3 1 )[64-691
I
1
I
30a. About how o f t e n do you p e t your ( o l d e s t ) v e h i c l e tuned up? MILES or MONTHS
I
1
I
I
99998 DK
[05-by]
31, Do you ( o r d o e s someone e l s e i n your household) do r o u t i n e maintenance anc r e p a i r of your v e h i c l e ( s ) , o r do you u s u a l l y have i t done by a g a r a g e or service station?
1 SiLF
f
*
20000 SOFIEONE ELSE--)(go t o 032)
30000 GARAGE, ET(;.-4(p,o t o 032) [7G-741
0
Do you c o n s i d e r t h e e m i s s i o n s c o n t r o l d e v i c e s when you do a tune-up?
1
I
I
I I
/ I 1
I
1 YES
3 SOMEWIiAT
5 NO
8 BU, NOT SURE
[71]
I
(
31b. If your v e h i c l e e x h a u s t system needed a major r e p a i r t o meet t h e e m i s s i o n s s t a n d a r d s , how l i k e l y i s i t t h a t you would be a b l e t o make t h e r e p a i r y o u r s e l f : v e r y l i k e l y , somewhat l i k e l y , o r n o t v e r y l i k e l y ?
1
I
1 VERY LIKELY
2 SOMEWHAT LIKELY
3 NOT VERY LIKELY
8 1)K
, [721
!
i
I
i 31c. Do you check your v e h i c l e ' s b r a k e s d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e of normal m a i n t e n a n c e ?
I
1 YES 3 SOMETIMES 50 NO--)(go t o 432) . -131d. How d o you check t h e b r a k e s ?
I
1 73-74]
----A
- .. .[ 741
1
HSRI
U-M
Telephone Q u e s t i o n n a i r e , Page 6
32, Do you b e l i e v e t h a t your v e h i c l e ( s ) ' e m i s s i o n s c o n t r o l s y s t e m s a r e working p r o p e r l y now?
10 YES-l(go
j
t o 033)
5 80
8 0 D K 4 p o t o Q33)
7-.1 32a, hThy i s t h a t ?
-
----------
[ 75-76]
-(
[7bl
33, F i n a l l y I h a v e t h r e e background q u e s t i o n s f o r s t a t i s t i c a l p u r p o s e s , I n what y e a r w e r e you b o r n ? YEAR 7 7 REFUSEL,
[77-781
34, Vhat i s t h e h i g h e s t l e v e l of e d u c a t i o n you h a v e c o m p l e t e d ?
1 XO FORMAL EDUCATION 4 COMPLETED H I G H SClIOOL
2 GRADE SCIiOOL ONLY
3 SOHE HIGlI SCHOOL
6 SOME C0LLI;GC
5 VOCATIONAL SCHOOL
7 COHPLETET) A FOUR-YEAR COLLEGE
9 COl4PLETED A O U A T E DEGREE
8 SOME GRAUUATE W O K
0 KEFUSED T SAY O
3 5 , I n what c a t e g o r y d o e s y o u r t o t a l y e a r l y f a m i l y i n c o n e f a l l , b e f o r e t a x e s ? Would you s a y i t i s more o r l e s s t h a n $20,000?
8 R L F L S Z 12 >.-.':
- . ..I or l e s s t h a n 3i;,LcL.
1
1 MORE
2 LESS
3 RENSEU
4NORE
LESS
bBEKSLb
Ibul
Thank you v e r y much f o r t a k i n g t h e t i m e t o be i n t h i s s u r v e y .
APPENDIX D
The Ma i 1 Questionnaire and Respondent Letters
F i r s t L e t t e r t o Mail Respondents ( J u n e 25, 1 9 7 9 )
STATE OF MICHIGAN
WILLIAM G . M I L L I K E N , G O V E R N O R
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING, 425 WEST OTTAWA PHONE [phone]
48909
POST OFFICE BOX 30050,
LANSING, MICHIGAN
JOHN P. WOODFORD, DlRECTOR
Your name has been randomly selected from a statewide sample of Michigan drivers for a public opinion survey concerning a i r pollution and a possible motor vehicle inspection program in Michigan. I am writing t o ask your cooperation in completing and mailing the short enclosed questionnaire in the postage-paid envelope as soon as possible, Motor vehicle exhausts contribute to a i r pollution which sometimes occurs in parts of Michigan, To reduce a i r pollution to acceptable health levels, the federal government has required engines in recent model cars t o be equipped with catalytic converters or other devices, When properly maintained, these exhaust emissions control devices have greatly reduced automotive a i r pollution. In spite of these improvements, some areas of Michigan will probably not reach the federal a i r pollution standards by the target year of 1982. Therefore, some areas of Michigan will be required t o have a yearly vehicle emissions inspection program to identify polluting vehicles and t o require owners t o bring them to the minimum emissions standards for vehicles of that model year. In preliminary planning for such a program, the Department of Transportation i s a1 so considering the possibility of making the program appl icabl e statewide, and a1 so including safety and noise inspections in the program.
I n order t o develop an inspection program which best suits the drivers of Michigan, w need your advice, This i s a unique opportunity for you to influence governmental e decisions which will affect you. For the results t o accurately represent the opinions of a l l groups of Michigan drivers, i t i s important that each questionnaire be returned, So please complete the questionnaire even i f you don't have strong opinions on some questions.
Please note that your answers wi 11 be treated completely confidentially, The questionnaire has an identification number only so that w may check your name off the mailing e 1 i s t when i t i s returned. Your name will never be placed on the questionnaire, and your answers will not be identified individually. They will be combined with a l l the answers t o make a s t a t i s t i c a l report on Michigan pub1 i c opinion concerning motor vehicle emissions inspections.
If you have any further questions about this survey, please feel free t o contact the Project Director, Dr. Arthur Wolfe, a t the University of Michigan. The telephone number i s [phone].
AKE STATE
Enclosure
Director
An Equal Opportunity Employer
SURVEY OF MICHIGAN DRIVERS CONCERNING MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTIONS A BRIEF QUESTIONNAIRE
Sponsored by:
Michigan Department o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n
D r . A r t h u r C . Wolfe 1 1 H.S.R.I. 1 U n i v e r s i t y o f Michigan Ann Arbor, Mich. 48109 T e l . [phone]
Survey D i r e c t o r :
DIRECTIONS: For most of t h e following questions p l e a s e c i r c l e t h e number i n f r o n t of your answer choice. On a few questione you w i l l need t o f i l l i n a blank l i n e o r w r i t e o u t an answer i n your own words.
1. Have you p e r s o n a l l y ever been bothered by a i r p o l l u t i o n i n t h e county where you l i v e ?
r + I n t h e p a s t year would you say you have been bothered by a i r p o l l u t i o n : la.
1 YES 1 5 NO-b(g0 t o 4.2) 1 A LOT 2 SM OE 3 N T MUCH O 4 N T A ALL OT
?
2. How widespread do you t h i n k t h e a i r p o l l u t i o n problem i n Michigan i s ? Would you say t h a t a i r p o l l u t i o n i s a s e r i o u s problem: ( c i r c l e one answer)
1 N W E E I N MICHIGAN O HR
2 O L I N A F W B I G CITIES NY E 3 THROUGHOUT SOUTHERN MICHIGAN 4 ALL OVER THE STATE ?
8 DON'T K O , NO OPINION NW
3. You probably know t h a t using r e g u l a r g a s i n c a r s designed f o r no-lead g a s o i n c r e a s e s t h e a i r p o l l u t i o n from such c a r s . D you favor o r oppose a law p r o h i b i t i n g m o t o r i s t s from using r e g u l a r g a s i n no-lead c a r s ?
1 FAVOR 2 OPPOSE
8 NO OPINION
[I31
4 . A s mentioned i n t h e l e t t e r , t h e s t a t e i s thinking about reducing a i r p o l l u t i o n by s e t t i n g up y e a r l y i n s p e c t i o n s of Michigan motor v e h i c l e s t o t e s t t h e i r exhaust emissions and t o r e q u i r e owners t o f i x those engines which a r e causing t o o much a i r p o l l u t i o n . I n t r y i n g t o decide i f such a v e h i c l e i n s p e c t i o n program i s d e s i r a b l e , one has t o t h i n k about t h e v a l u e of reducing a i r p o l l u t i o n a g a i n s t t h e t o t a l program c o s t s i n time, t r a v e l , i n s p e c t i o n f e e s , and r e p a i r s . What i s your g e n e r a l opinion? Do you favor o r oppose a required emissions i n s p e c t i o n program i n your county?
4a. Do you f e e l s t r o n g l y about t h a t , o r not very s t r o n g l y ?
&
1 FAVOR 2 OPPOSE
1 STRONGLY 2 N T VERY STRONGLY O
5 Another i d e a which has been mentioned f o r reducing a i r p o l l u t i o n i n some places . i s t o p r o h i b i t parking i n c e r t a i n a r e a s with heavy a i r p o l l u t i o n i n o r d e r t o
encourage people t o u s e p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t a t i o n . If you had t o choose between a no parking program and a n emissions t e s t i n g program, which would you p r e f e r ?
1 NO PARKING 2 EMISSIONS INSPECTION
8 NO OPINION
[I61
6. I n thinking about a p o s s i b l e exhaust emissions i n s p e c t i o n program f o r Michigan t h e r e a r e a number of d e c i s i o n s which would have t o be made about how t h e program might work, One choice has t o do with l i c e n s i n g a l a r g e number of p r i v a t e garages and s e r v i c e s t a t i o n s t o do t h e inspections, o r with s e t t i n g up a l i m i t e d number of new s t a t e s t a t i o n s t o do t h e inspections. Do you t h i n k i t would be b e t t e r t o s e t up s p e c i a l s t a t e i n s p e c t i o n s t a t i o n s , o r t o l i c e n s e p r i v a t e garages t o do t h e inspections?
6a. Why do you f e e l t h a t way?
F +
1 STATE STATIONS
2 PRIVATE GARAGES AND SERVICE STATIONS
800 NO OPINION-+(go
t o 417) [17-191
7. I f an emissions i n s p e c t i o n program i s s e t up, do you favor o r oppose including buses and l a r g e t r u c k s i n t h e program?
1 FAVOR 2 OPPOSE
8 NO OPINION
8. I f an emissions i n s p e c t i o n program i s s e t up, do you t h i n k i t should be required s t a t e w i d e , o r only i n t h e a r e a s with t h e worst p o l l u t i o n problems?
8a. Do you f e e l s t r o n g l y about t h a t , o r not very s t r o n g l y ?
E
1 STATEWIDE 2 WORST POLLUTION AREAS O L NY
80 NO o P I N I O N ~ ~t O Q.9) o
[21-221
1 STRONGLY 2 N T V R STRONGLY O EY
9, What do you t h i n k would be a reasonable l o n g e s t d i s t a n c e f o r someone i n your a r e a t o have t o d r i v e f o r an emissions inspection?
-
MILES
98 NO OPINION
10. What do you think would be a reasonable longest time f o r someone t o spend a t t h e i n s p e c t i o n s t a t i o n waiting and g e t t i n g inspected?
$ -
MINUTES
998 NO OPINION
[25-271
11. What do you t h i n k would be a reasonable i n s p e c t i o n f e e , o r do you think
t h e i n s p e c t i o n should be paid f o r by o t h e r s t a t e funds? DOLLARS 00 FREE, OTHER STATE FVNDS 12. I f a v e h i c l e d i d not meet t h e emissions standards f e r v e h i c l e s of i t s age and type, what do you t h i n k would be a reasonable l e n g t h of time t o give t h e owner t o g e t t h e emissions system working properly? 98 NO OPINION [28-291
-
DY AS
98 NO OPINION
13. It has been suggested t h a t some o l d e r c a r s should be exempted from having t o r e p a i r t h e i r emissions systems i f t h e r e p a i r c o s t was a l a r g e percentage of t h e v e h i c l e ' s value. Do you f a v o r o r oppose t h i s idea?
13a. What percentage of t h e v e h i c l e ' s value should t h e r e p a i r c o s t be i n o r d e r t o be exempted? (at least) PER CENT 98 NO OPINION
r +
1 FAVOR 2 OPPOSE-Hgo t o 9.14)
14, I f a v e h i c l e owner could not a f f o r d t o pay t h e c o s t s of r e p a i r i n g t h e emissions system, do you t h i n k t h e v e h i c l e should be exempted from t h e emissions requirements, o r should t h e s t a t e s e t up a s p e c i a l fund f o r t h e r e p a i r of such v e h i c l e s , o r should t h e v e h i c l e be taken off t h e road, o r what? 1 0 EXEMPTED--)(go t o 4.15) 2 SPECIAL STATE FUND 30 TAKEN OFF THE ROADl)(go t o 4.15) 80 NO OPINION+(go t o Q.15) [35-361 4 g o t o 4.15)
14a. Should t h i s be a loan fund which t h e owner has t o pay back, o r should it be a welfare grant?
1LA ON 2 WELFARE GRANT
+
8 NO OPINION
[36]
15. Who do you t h i n k could be t r u s t e d mote t o do a proper emissions t e s t ,
i n s p e c t o r s i n state-operated s t a t i o n s o r i n s p e c t o r s i n s t a t e - l i c e n s e d garages and s e r v i c e s t a t i o n s , o r don't you t h i n k t h e r e would be any d i f f e r e n c e ?
1 STATE INSPECTORS 2 PRIVATE INSPECTORS 3 NO DIFFERENCE
8 NO OPINION
[371
1 6 . ~ 0 ~ have a q u e s t i o n about s a f e t y inspections. A s you probably know, many we r t h e r s t a t e s r e q u i r e r e g u l a r s a f e t y i n s p e c t i o n s of t h e i r r e g i s t e r e d v e h i c l e s f o r such components a s l i g h t s , brakes, s t e e r i n g , and t i r e s . Do you favor o r oppose such a r e g u l a r s a f e t y i n s p e c t i o n program f o r Michigan?
16a. D you f e e l s t r o n g l y about t h a t , o r n o t very s t r o n g l y ? o
1 STRONGLY 2 N T VERY STRONGLY O
F
1 FAVOR 2 OPPOSE
80 NO OPINION-b(go t o Q,17) [38-391
17. Some s t a t e s have combined programs of i n s p e c t i o n f o r both s a f e t y and emissions, Do you f a v o r o r oppose such a combined program f o r Michigan?
1 FAVOR 2 OPPOSE
8 NO OPINION
18. A combined e m i s s i o n s and s a f e t y i n s p e c t i o n would c o s t somewhat more t h a n a n e m i s s i o n s i n s p e c t i o n a l o n e , What do you t h i n k would be a r e a s o n a b l e combined i n s p e c t i o n f e e , o r do you t h i n k t h e combined i n s p e c t i o n should b e p a i d f o r by o t h e r s t a t e f u n d s ?
$ -
DOLLARS
98 NO OPINION
00 FREE, OTHER STATE FUNDS 19. tiow much do you t h i n k r e q u i r e d v e h i c l e s a f e t y i n s p e c t i o n s would r e d u c e motor v e h i c l e a c c i d e n t s i n Michigan?
1 A LOT 2 SOME 3 N T MC O UH
8 NO OPINION
20. I t h a s a l s o been suggested t h a t a n i n s p e c t i o n program should i n c l u d e t e s t i n g of v e h i c l e n o i s e and should make any n o i s y v e h i c l e be f i x e d . Do you f a v o r o r oppose r e q u i r e d s t a t e t e s t i n g of motor v e h i c l e n o i s e ?
20a. Do you f e e l s t r o n g l y about t h a t , o r n o t v e r y s t r o n g l y ?
F
+
1 FAVOR OPPOSE
80 NO OPINIONdgo t o 4.21)
[44-45)
1 STRONGLY 2 NOT VERY STRONGLY
21. Are you e v e r d i s t u r b e d by t h e n o i s e made by i n d i v i d u a l n o i s y v e h i c l e s ?
21a. What t y p e s of v e h i c l e s d i s t u r b you t h e most?
22. How s t r i c t l y do you t h i n k s t a t e r u l e s on motor v e h i c l e n o i s e should be enforced? 1 VERY STRICTLY 2 SOMEWHAT STRICTLY 3 NOT VERY STRICTLY
8 N OPINION O
2 3 . Another i d e a which h a s been suggested i s t h a t t h e s t a t e should s e t up
s p e c i a l d i a g n o s t i c c e n t e r s where m o t o r i s t s could pay t o have problems w i t h t h e i r motor v e h i c l e s diagnosed by i m p a r t i a l c e r t i f i e d mechanics b e f o r e t a k i n g them t o p r i v a t e g a r a g e s f o r r e p a i r . Such a c e n t e r could a l s o be used by p e o p l e buying a new o r used c a r t o check f o r d e f e c t s . Do you f a v o r o r oppose t h e s t a t e s e t t i n g up such d i a g n o s t i c c e n t e r s ?
1 FAVOR 2 OPPOSE
24. N w t h e r e a r e a few background questions about your household and i t s o v e h i c l e s ? How many licensed d r i v e r s a r e t h e r e i n your household?
25. How many personal motor v e h i c l e s of what types a r e owned by your household?
CMS...................
VANS, PICKUPS, JEEPS, UTILITY VEHICLES MOTORCYCLES OTHER : 26 h'hat i s the model year of t h e o l d e s t v e h i c l e ?
NUMBER
NUMBER
+
1511
[ 52 1
... .
r
,
r
r
.
NME U BR
-NUMBER
YA ER
154 1 [55-561
27. Would you say t h a t t h i s v e h i c l e i s i n s a f e operating condition now, o r t h a t t h e r e a r e some s a f e t y components which need r e p a i r ? 100 SAFE NOW+(go to 9.28) J-2 REPAIRS NEEDED 27a. What components a r e these? 800 DON'T KNOWdgo t o Q.28) [57-591
[58,591
28, What do you think a r e t h e main types of v e h i c l e d e f e c t s which sometimes contribute t o accidents?
29. Have you ever had occasion t o use regular gasoline i n a v e h i c l e designed t o use no-lead g a s o l i n e ? 1 YES 5 NO 8 DON'T KNOW, NOT SURE
30. How c l o s e l y would you say you follow your owner's manual f o r r e g u l a r s e r v i c e and r e p a i r of your v e h i c l e ( s ) ?
30a.About how o f t e n do you g e t your o l d e s t v e h i c l e tuned up? MILES or PIONTHS 99998 DON'T KNOW
*
1 VERY CLOSELY 2 S M W A CLOSELY O E HT 300000 N T VERY CLOSELY+(go O
800000 DON'T KNOW+(go t o 4.31) [64-691 t o (1.31)
31. D you, o r does someone e l s e i n your household, do r o u t i n e maintenance and o r e p a i r of your v e h i c l e ( s ) , o r do you u s u a l l y have i t done by a garage o r service station? 80000 DON'T KNOW+(go t o 4.32) ELSE I N HOUSEHOLD ORBY FRIENDdgo t o (1.32) [70-741 30000 DONE BY PRIVATE GARAGE OR SERVICE S T A T I O N 4 g o t o Q.32) 31a. D you consider t h e m i s s i o n s c o n t r o l d e v i c e s when you do a tune-up? o
1 YES
3 S MW A O E HT
8 DON'T KNOW
I7l1
5 NO
31b. I f your v e h i c l e exhaust system needed a major r e p a i r t o meet t h e emissions s t a n d a r d s , how l i k e l y i s i t t h a t you would be a b l e t o make t h e r e p a i r y o u r s e l f ? l
Ii
~
I
1 VERY LIKELY 2 S M W A LIKELY O E HT
3 N T VERY LIKELY O
8 DON'T KNOW
[72]
31c. Do you check your v e h i c l e ' s brakes during t h e course of normal maintenance?
I +F
3 SOMETIMES 50 NO-(go t o (1.32)
31d. How do you check t h e brakes?
[ 741
32. D you b e l i e v e t h a t your v e h i c l e s ' emissions c o n t r o l systems a r e working o p r o p e r l y now?
33. F i n a l l y t h e r e a r e 3 background q u e s t i o n s f o r s t a t i s t i c a l purposes. I n what year were you born? YEAR 34. \,;hat i s t h e h i g h e s t l e v e l of education you have completed?
1 NO FORhlAL EDUCATION 2 G A E SCHOOL ONLY RD 3 SOYE HIGH SCHOOL 4 COYPLETED H I G H SCHOOL 5 VOCATIONAL SCHOOL
6 7 8 9
S M COLLEGE OE COMPLETED A FOUR-YEAR COLLEGE SOYE GRADUATE WORK COMPLETED A G A U T DEGREE R D AE
35. In which of t h e four c a t e g o r i e s below does your t o t a l y e a r l y family income f a l l , before taxes? 5 LESS THU $10,000 [801 4 $10,000-$20,000 2 $20,000-$30,000 1 OVER $30,000
Is t h e r e anything e l s e you would l i k e t o s a y about t h e problem of a i r p o l l u t i o n o r about motor v e h i c l e i n s p e c t i o n s , o r do you have any s u g g e s t i o n s concerning a p p r o p r i a t e q u e s t i o n s t o i n c l u d e i n a f u t u r e q u e s t i o n n a i r e on t h i s t o p i c ? If s o , p l e a s e u s e t h e s p a c e below f o r t h e s e a d d i t i o n a l comments,
THANK YOU VERY MUCH F O R EXPRESSIRC, YOUR VIEWS OR TtIESE I S S U E S O F G R U T IFIPORTANCE TO YOUR S T A T E GOVERNMENT AND TO ALL OF THE C I T I Z E N S O F MLCHIGAK,
Reminder P o s t c a r d t o A l l Mail Respondents
(
J u n e 30, 1979 Dear Kichigan D r i v e r : L a s t week a q u e s t i o n n a i r e s e e k i n g your o p i n i o n about a i r p o l l u t i o n and motor v e h i c l e i n s p e c t i o n was m a i l e d t o you, Your name was drawn from a random sample of Michigan d r i v e r s , If you have a l r e a d y f i l l e d o u t t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e , p l e a s e a c c e p t our s i n c e r e t h a n k s , I f you have n o t done s o y e t , p l e a s e do i t today, Because t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e h a s been s e n t t o o n l y a small, b u t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , sample i t i s extremely i m p o r t a n t t h a t your o p i n i o n s b e i n c l u d e d i f t h e s t u d y r e s u l t s a r e t o a c c u r a t e l y r e p r e s e n t t h e o p i n i o n s of Michigan d r i v e r s , If by some chance you d i d n o t r e c e i v e t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e , o r i f i t h a s been misplaced, p l e a s e c a l l me c o l l e c t and I w i l l g e t a n o t h e r one i n t h e m a i l t o you immediately (313-764-0248), Sincerely, A r t h u r C , Wolfe Project Director
\r
Second L e t t e r t o Some Mail Respondents 111 H.S.R.I.
THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Ann Arbor, Mich. 48109 July 18, 1979
On June 25 you were sent a letter from the Michigan Director of Transportation seeking your opinions on a motor vehicle emissions inspection program for Michigan. As of today we have not received your completed questionnaire. The purpose of this survey is to find out how the people of Michigan feel about motor vehicle inspections and what kind of an inspection program would be most suitable to Michigan motorists. I am writing to you now because of the significance each questionnaire has to the usefulness of this study. Your name was randomly selected by a scientific probability procedure from the Michigan driver file, and if the survey results are to be truly representative of all Michigan drivers it is important that your opinions be included. I hope you will be able to send in your completed questionnaire right away. If you can not find the questionnaire which was mailed to you last month, please call me collect at [phone] and I will mail another one to you immediately. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Arthur C. Wolfe Survey Director P.S. If your completed questionnaire has crossed in the mail with this letter, I apologize for writing to you again. Thank you very much for your assistance to this survey.
Second L e t t e r t o O t h e r Mail Respondents
111 H.S.R.I.
T H E UNIVERSITY O F MICHIGAN Ann Arbor, Mich. 48109
July 18, 1979
On June 25 you were sent a letter from the Michigan Director of Transportation seeking your opinions on a motor vehicle emissions inspection program for Michigan. As of today we have not received your completed questionnaire. The purpose of this survey is to find out how the people of Michigan feel about motor vehicle inspections and what kind of an inspection program would be most suitable to Michigan motorists. I am writing to you now because of the significance each questionnaire has to the usefulness of this study. Your name was randomly selected by a scientific probability procedure from the Michigan driver file, and if the survey results are to be truly representative of all Michigan drivers it is important that your opinions be included. I hope you will be able to send in your completed questionnaire right away.
In case your first questionnaire has been misplaced, a replacement is enclosed with another postage-free envelope. If you have any questions about this survey, please feel free to call me collect at [phone].
Your cooperation is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Arthur C. Wolfe Survey Director P.S. If your completed questionnaire has crossed in the mail with this letter, I apologize for writing to you again. Thank you very much for your assistance to this survey.
T h i r d L e t t e r t o Mail Respondents
111 H.S.R.I.
T H E U N I V E R S I T Y OF MICHIGAN
Ann Arbor, Plich. 48109 August 2, 1979
I am writing to you again about our public opinion survey concerning motor vehicle inspections for the rlichigan Department of Transportation. As of this date we have not received your completed questionnaire, I an using certified mail to make sure that this letter and questionnaire are delivered to you.
The large number of questionnaires returned so far is very encouraging. But, whether we will be able to describe accurately how Michigan drivers feel about motor vehicle emissions inspections depends on you and others who have not yet responded. This is because our past experience suggests that those of you have not yet sent in your questionnaires may hold somewhat different opinions from those who have already replied. The Michigan Department of Transportation is anxious to obtain a representative sampling of opinions from all types of Michigan drivers as it tries to decide what kind of a vehicle inspection program, if any, is most appropriate for Nichigan. We need your opinions to make our sample truly representative. So PLEASE take a few minutes to fill out the q-uestionnaire and return it in the postage-free envelope as soon as possible. Sincerely,
Arthur C. Wolfe Survey Di-ector P.S. If your completed questionnaire has crossed in the mail with this letter, I apologize for writing to you again. Thank you very much for your assistance to this survey,
. APPENDIX E
FURTHER YETHODOLOGICAL NOTES T h i s appendix i s i n t e n d e d a s an e l a b o r a t i o n of S e c t i o n 2 of t h i s r e p o r t w i t h f u r t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n and e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e o p e r a t i o n a l procedures used i n t h e survey.
I t includes a
summary d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e o p e r a t i o n a l p r o c e d u r e s , a b r i e f d i s c u s s i o n of t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e t e l e p h o n e p a r t o f t h e s u r v e y , and a more e x t e n s i v e d i s c u s s i o n of t h e m a i l p a r t o f t h e survey-i n c l u d i n g two m e t h o d o l o g i c a l e x p e r i m e n t s i n m a i l i n g p r o c e d u r e s and t h e u s e of c e r t i f i e d l e t t e r s i n t h e f i n a l m a i l i n g . Survey O p e r a t i o n a l P r o c e d u r e s The sample i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e 1024 randomly s e l e c t e d d r i v e r s was p r o v i d e d by t h e Michigan Department o f S t a t e i n a computer p r i n t o u t u s i n g c a p i t a l l e t t e r s . After subselecting t h e sample t o 9 9 9 d r i v e r s i n o r d e r t o p e r m i t a t h r e e - d i g i t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number t h e f i r s t o p e r a t i o n a l s t e p was t o t y p e t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n i n t o a computer f i l e u s i n g c o n v e n t i o n a l lower and upper c a s e l e t t e r s . record--name, Each sampled d r i v e r had a f i v e - l i n e
s t r e e t a d d r e s s , c i t y - s t a t e - z i p code, s a l u t a t i o n ,* depending on t h e s e x i n d i c a t e d on t h e (Dear M r . or- M s . ,. p r i n t o u t ) , and demographic i n f o r m a t i o n ( c o u n t y , d a t e of b i r t h , s e x ) , The computer was t h e n used t o g e n e r a t e a unique i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number f o r e a c h c a s e and a l s o o t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n s u c h a s age on May 1, county name, county s i z e , and t e l e p h o n e a r e a code. These i t e m s were added t o t h e f i f t h l i n e o f e a c h c a s e . The n e x t s t e p was t o c r e a t e a one-page C o n t r o l Form f o r e a c h p o t e n t i a l r e s p o n d e n t (copy a t t a c h e d ) v i a t h e S t a t i s t i c a l Research L a b o r a t o r y ' s TEXTEDIT program. Then a s p e c i a l program had t o be w r i t t e n u s i n g t h e computer f i l e f o r t h e sample t o f i l l i n t h e name and a d d r e s s and o t h e r u s e f u l i n f o r m a t i o n on a s e p a r a t e C o n t r o l Form f o r each sampled d r i v e r . The l a s t d i g i t o f t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number was used t o d i v i d e t h e sample i n t o t e n random g r o u p s , and Groups 2 , 6 , and 7 were randomly chosen a s a r e s e r v e sample t o be s u r v e y e d o n l y by m a i l and o n l y i f s u f f i c i e n t funds were a v a i l a b l e a f t e r c o n d u c t i n g t h e t e l e p h o n e s u r v e y w i t h t h e o t h e r seven groups.
...
I n o r d e r t o o b t a i n .telephone numbers f o r t h e s e 6 9 9 res p o n d e n t s two p r o c e d u r e s were used. F i r s t t h e c u r r e n t telephone d i r e c t o r y was c o n s u l t e d i f it was a v a i l a b l e i n t h e Ann Arbor P u b l i c L i b r a r y . I f a t e l e p h o n e l i s t i n g was n o t found t h e r e , D i r e c t o r y A s s i s t a n c e s e r v i c e s were used. t h e t e l e p h o n e sample. These p r o c e d u r e s l e d t o a s c e r t a i n i n g 433 t e l e p h o n e numbers f o r t h e 699 d r i v e r s i n Respondent l e t t e r s from Michigan D i r e c t o r o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n John Woodward were s e n t t o Group 0 on May 8 , Groups 2 and 3 on May 11, Groups 4 and 5 on May 21, and Groups 8 and 9 on May 3 0 .
A t r a i n i n g s e s s i o n was h e l d w i t h f i v e of
t h e s i x t e l e p h o n e i n t e r v i e w e r s on May 9 , and a p p r o p r i a t e C o n t r o l Forms were d i s t r i b u t e d t o them s h o r t l y a f t e r e a c h m a i l i n g s o t h a t they could proceed with interviewing t h e i r assigned drivers. Most i n t e r v i e w i n g was completed by mid-June, b u t some continued i n t o e a r l y July--particularly number of c a s e s . b e c a u s e one i n t e r v i e w e r
found t h a t s h e d i d n ' t have enough time t o h a n d l e h e r a s s i g n e d The i n t e r v i e w e r s were borrowed from t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f Michigan I n s t i t u t e f o r S o c i a l Research b u t were p a i d d i r e c t l y by t h e Highway S a f e t y Research I n s t i t u t e . On Wednesday, June 27, m a i l q u e s t i o n n a i r e s a l o n g w i t h a c o v e r l e t t e r from John Woodward were s e n t t o t h e 266 d r i v e r s i n t h e t e l e p h o n e sample f o r whom no t e l e p h o n e number had been o b t a i n e d and a l s o t o t h e 300 d r i v e r s i n t h e r e s e r v e sample. June 28 o r l a t e r a s i m i l a r m a i l i n g was made t o a l l b u t one o f t h e 63 t e l e p h o n e sample r e s p o n d e n t s who c o u l d n o t b e i n t e r v i e w e d by t e l e p h o n e p l u s t h e two p a r t i a l t e l e p h o n e i n t e r v i e w respond e n t s , e a c h w i t h a s h o r t added n o t e from t h e s u r v e y d i r e c t o r . This mailing, a s with t h e telephone respondent mailing, used Michigan Department of T r a n s p o r t a t i o n e n v e l o p e s .
A l l mail
On
r e s p o n d e n t s were a l s o s e n t a reminder p o s t c a r d s i x days l a t e r p e r s o n a l l y s i g n e d by t h e s u r v e y d i r e c t o r , and t h i s g e n e r a t e d n i n e c o l l e c t c a l l s and one l e t t e r a s k i n g f o r a r e p l a c e m e n t q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Another m a i l i n g was made t o a l l n o n r e s p o n d e n t s on Wednesday, J u l y 1 8 , w i t h a l l l e t t e r s p e r s o n a l l y s i g n e d by t h e survey d i r e c t o r . Replacement q u e s t i o n n a i r e s and r e t u r n e n v e l o p e s were i n c l u d e d i n t h e m a i l i n g t o f o u r groups ( 0 , I , 3, 9 ) b u t n o t t o t h e o t h e r s i x g r o u p s . Twelve c o l l e c t c a l l s
were r e c e i v e d r e q u e s t i n g r e p l a c e m e n t q u e s t i o n n a i r e s from d r i v e r s i n t h e s e s i x groups. The f i n a l m a i l i n g t o a l l remaining nonrespondents was made by c e r t i f i e d m a i l ( 8 0 $ p l u s 156 f i r s t c l a s s p o s t a g e ) on August 2 and 3. director. T h i s m a i l i n g i n c l u d e d a replacement q u e s t i o n n a i r e and The r e t u r n e n v e l o p e s and t h e t h r e e m a i l i n g s from t h e r e t u r n e n v e l o p e and a l e t t e r p e r s o n a l l y s i g n e d by t h e s u r v e y s u r v e y d i r e c t o r o n l y i n d i c a t e d "H.S.R.I., U n i v e r s i t y of Michigan" a s t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n c o n d u c t i n g t h e s u r v e y b e c a u s e of t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t r e s p o n d e n t s might b e somewhat b i a s e d i n t h e i r r e s p o n s e s i f t h e y r e a l i z e d t h a t t h e s u r v e y o r g a n i z a t i o n was d i r e c t l y concerned w i t h highway s a f e t y .
A l l questionnaires
-
m a i l e d had t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number h a n d w r i t t e n on t h e upper r i g h t c o r n e r of t h e c o v e r , u s i n g a d i f f e r e n t c o l o r i n k f o r e a c h m a i l i n g , and t h e c o v e r l e t t e r e x p l a i n e d t h a t t h i s number was t h e r e o n l y s o t h e r e c e i v e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s c o u l d b e checked o f f t h e m a i l i n g l i s t .
A l l o u t e r e n v e l o p e s were m a i l e d
w i t h a f i r s t c l a s s O l i v e r Wendell Holmes stamp a f f i x e d , and t h e c e r t i f i e d l e t t e r s a l s o c o n t a i n e d two 40$ Thomas P a i n e stamps. The o r i g i n a l name and a d d r e s s computer f i l e was used t o p r i n t a l l e n v e l o p e s and i n s i d e a d d r e s s e s on t h e l e t t e r s v i a t h e
TEXTEDIT program.
The i n s i d e a d d r e s s t y p e was s i m i l a r t o t h a t
used on t h e d u p l i c a t e d l e t t e r s , b u t s t i l l d i f f e r e n c e s i n d e n s i t y made i t a p p a r e n t t h a t t h e e n t i r e l e t t e r had n o t been i n d i v i d u a l l y typed. When an i n t e r v i e w o r q u e s t i o n n a i r e was r e c e i v e d t h e c a s e Then was d e l e t e d from t h e computer f i l e , s o t h a t when t h e n e x t m a i l i n g was made only'rronrespondents would r e c e i v e i t . new computer f i l e f o r a n a l y s i s p u r p o s e s . computer f i l e f o r a n a l y s i s . The Telephone Survey R e s u l t s *
A s mentioned above, t e l e p h o n e numbers were o b t a i n e d from
t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e was e d i t e d , keypunched, and e n t e r e d i n t o a Similarly, t h e Control Forms were f i l l e d o u t , keypunched, and p l a c e d i n a s e p a r a t e
o n l y 4 3 3 of t h e 6 9 9 d r i v e r s i n t h e t e l e p h o n e sample, a 6 2 % r a t e . Three hundred and seven numbers were o b t a i n e d from c o n s u l t i n g c u r r e n t d i r e c t o r i e s , and 126 were o b t a i n e d from D i r e c t o r y Assistance services. T h i s l a t t e r s o u r c e a l s o i n d i c a t e d t h a t 111
d r i v e r s had u n l i s t e d numbers (15.9% of t h e t o t a l sample--20.4% of t h e sample f o r whom some i n f o r m a t i o n was a v a i l a b l e ) , w h i l e no i n f o r m a t i o n was a v a i l a b l e f o r 155 d r i v e r s (22.2% of t h e sample). O b t a i n i n g t e l e p h o n e numbers was c o m p l i c a t e d by t h e F o r many f a c t t h a t a l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n of d r i v e r s a r e n o t l i s t e d i n a t e l e p h o n e d i r e c t o r y under t h e i r own f i r s t names. women and young p e o p l e it was n e c e s s a r y t o s c a n e x t e n s i v e l i s t i n g s w i t h t h e same surname l o o k i n g f o r t h e r i g h t a d d r e s s . T h i s p r o c e s s was e a s i e r t o c o n t r o l when HSRI s t a f f were l o o k i n g i n a c u r r e n t d i r e c t o r y , but Directory Assistance personnel seemed g e n e r a l l y w i l l i n g a l s o t o do such s c a n n i n g i n t h e i r
l i s t s when t h e number of l i s t i n g s w i t h t h e same surname was
n o t very long. That t h i s p r o c e s s o f s c a n n i n g f o r t h e r i g h t a d d r e s s was f a i r l y s u c c e s s f u l i s s u g g e s t e d by t h e bottom p a r t s o f Table E l which shows t h a t t h e p e r c e n t a g e w i t h no i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e was a l m o s t a s h i g h f o r males a s over 25. Table E l a l s o shows t h e g e o g r a p h i c v a r i a t i o n i n t e l e p h o n e number a v a i l a b i l i t y . Most s t r i k i n g i s t h e h i g h p e r c e n t a g e of one t h i r d of t h e sample u n l i s t e d numbers i n D e t r o i t - - a l m o s t f o r females and was o n l y a s m a l l amount g r e a t e r f o r young p e o p l e t h a n f o r t h o s e
and o v e r 4 0 % of t h o s e w i t h t e l e p h o n e i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e . T h i s c o n t r a s t s s h a r p l y w i t h t h e s m a l l p e r c e n t a g e s of u n l i s t e d numbers i n t h e most r u r a l c o u n t i e s of Nichigan ( u n d e r 3 % ) . The D e t r o i t percentage i s a l s o considerably higher than t h e perc e n t a g e s i n o t h e r major c i t i e s and i n t h e s u r r o u n d i n g suburban areas. Table E l a l s o shows t h a t t h e l a r g e s t p e r c e n t a g e s of no i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e were i n t h e most r u r a l c o u n t i e s , a l t h o u g h
it seems u n l i k e l y t h a t t h e s e c o u n t i e s c o n t a i n s u b s t a n t i a l l y
g r e a t e r p e r c e n t a g e s of p o o r e r p e o p l e who can n o t a f f o r d t e l e phones. Whether t h i s r e s u l t r e a l l y r e f l e c t s h i g h e r p r o p o r t i o n s In o f d r i v e r s w i t h o u t t e l e p h o n e s i n r u r a l Michigan i s u n c l e a r . f a c t why no t e l e p h o n e i n f o r m a t i o n was a v a i l a b l e f o r o v e r one f i f t h of t h e d r i v e r s s t a t e w i d e i s u n c l e a r , c o n s i d e r i n g t h a t Census Bureau s t u d i e s show t h a t a l m o s t a l l American households have t e l e p h o n e s e r v i c e .
A s would b e e x p e c t e d , D e t r o i t had a
s u b s t a n t i a l l y h i g h e r p e r c e n t a g e of m i s s i n g t e l e p h o n e i n f o r m a t i o n t h a n o t h e r Michigan c i t i e s and suburban a r e a s .
E4
TABLE E l . Telephone Number I n f o r m a t i o n A v a i l a b i l i t y by Geographic Area, Sex, and Age, i n P e r Cent GEOGRAPHIC AREA Detroit City
N
Listed Unlisted No Telephone No. Telephone No. I n f o r m a t i o n 44.2 68.4 63.6 64.3 64.2 31.4 15.8 21.8
20.0
86 Grand Rapids, F l i n t , Lansing 38 Seven O t h e r H a j o r C i t i e s Large Suburbs O t h e r Communities Wayne County Oakland, Macomb C o u n t i e s O t h e r 5 D e t r o i t Area Counties Genesee, Ingham, Kent Counties O t h e r C e n t r a l SMSA C o u n t i e s Other Counties with C i t i e s Over 15,000 Other Rural Counties
SEX
24.4 15.8 14.5 15.7 25.2
55 115 405
10.6
157 66 73 71
O t h e r Suburban SMSA C o u n t i e s 37 39 83
Male Female
AGE
16-17 18-20 21-24 25-64 65-90
TOTAL
However, once a t e l e p h o n e number was o b t a i n e d , t h e t e l e phone i n t e r v i e w e r s were a b l e t o a c h i e v e an e x c e l l e n t r e s p o n s e r a t e , 85.5% o f t h e 433 c a s e s . Only 23, o r 5 . 3 % , r e f u s e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e o r s u g g e s t e d t h a t a m a i l q u e s t i o n n a i r e would b e p r e f e r a b l e , w h i l e a n o t h e r 13 ( 3 . 0 % ) were u n a v a i l a b l e f o r v a r i o u s r e a s o n s ( i l l , o u t o f town, language d i f f i c u l t y , h a r d of h e a r i n g , etc.). There were a l s o 22 t e l e p h o n e numbers which were d i s s i x which had changed t o an u n l i s t e d c o n n e c t e d , o r wrong numbers, o r a t which t h e sampled d r i v e r had moved away--including number. S i x t e e n o f t h e s e i n v o l v e d numbers o b t a i n e d from t e l e -
phone d i r e c t o r k s , i n c l u d i n g f i v e which changed t o an u n l i s t e d number, n i n e o t h e r s which were d i s c o n n e c t e d o r a t which t h e sampled d r i v e r had moved, and two which were wrong numbers. Even t h e t e l e p h o n e numbers p r o v i d e d by D i r e c t o r y A s s i s t a n c e i n c l u d e d two which were d i s c o n n e c t e d and one which w a s changed t o an u n l i s t e d number when t h e i n t e r v i e w e r s c a l l e d less t h a n two weeks l a t e r . drivers. There were a l s o t h r e e wrong numbers among
1 t h e 1 1 D i r e c t o r y A s s i s t a n c e numbers, a l l i n v o l v i n g female
Thus t h e D i r e c t o r y A s s i s t a n c e i n f o r m a t i o n was somewhat r e g a r d i n g nonworking numbers, b u t it a l s o seemed Nevermore u p - t o - d a t e
t o b e l e s s a c c u r a t e i n t r a c i n g f e m a l e d r i v e r s ' numbers.
t h e l e s s i n r e t r o s p e c t it a p p e a r s t h a t t h e p r o c e s s o f o b t a i n i n g t e l e p h o n e numbers would have been c h e a p e r and more e f f i c i e n t i f o n l y D i r e c t o r y A s s i s t a n c e s e r v i c e s had been u t i l i z e d . There were o n l y f i v e a p p a r e n t l y working numbers a t which no answer was e v e r o b t a i n e d , d e s p i t e a t o t a l o f 7 6 c a l l s t o t h e s e numbers. For t h e s u c c e s s f u l i n t e r v i e w s t h e a v e r a g e Almost one t h i r d were completed on number of c a l l s was 2.77.
t h e f i r s t c a l l , and o n l y f i v e r e q u i r e d t e n o r more c a l l s . Length of i n t e r v i e w was n o t r e c o r d e d r o u t i n e l y , b u t it was c a l c u l a b l e from t h e t e l e p h o n e c h a r g e s h e e t s f o r t h e 216 successful interviews involving long d i s t a n c e c a l l s . t h e s e i n t e r v i e w s t h e a v e r a g e t i m e was 18.5 m i n u t e s . 20.7. T o t a l l o n g d i s t a n c e t e l e p h o n e c h a r g e s came t o a b o u t $1100, o r a b o u t $5 p e r l o n g d i s t a n c e i n t e r v i e w . Four of t h e i n t e r For The
a v e r a g e times f o r t h e s i x i n t e r v i e w e r s ranged from 1 5 . 3 t o
v i e w e r s had Metro t e l e p h o n e s e r v i c e a t home, s o t h e y were a b l e t o make c a l l s i n t h e C e t r o i t a r e a d u r i n g t h e a f t e r n o o n and evening without i n c u r r i n g long d i s t a n c e charges. o r a b o u t $2.70 p e r s u c c e s s f u l i n t e r v i e w . Interviewer pay and o t h e r expenses ( p o s t a g e and m i l e a g e ) came t o a b o u t $1000, Thus t h e o v e r a l l d i r e c t c o s t e x t e r n a l t o H S R I f o r t h e 370 s u c c e s s f u l t e l e p h o n e i n t e r v i e w s was a b o u t $2100 , o r $5.70 p e r i n t e r v i e w ( i n c l u d i n g b o t h l o n g d i s t a n c e and l o c a l c a l l i n t e r v i e w s ) . The a v e r a g e number of days from m a i l i n g t h e r e s p o n d e n t
-
l e t t e r till t h e f i r s t i n t e r v i e w e r c a l l was 8 . 6 , b u t t h e r e s p o n s e r a t e was o n l y s l i g h t l y h i g h e r f o r r e s p o n d e n t s f i r s t c a l l e d ' i n t h e f i r s t week t h a n f o r r e s p o n d e n t s f i r s t c a l l e d i n t h e s e c o n d , t h i r d , o r f o u r t h week a f t e r t h e m a i l i n g . Over 9 0 h f t h e t e l e p h o n e r e s p o n d e n t s who were a s k e d s a i d t h e y remembered receiving t h e respondent l e t t e r . This proportion declined only s l i g h t l y from 91.7% i n t h e f i r s t week, t o 90.7% i n t h e second week, t o 8 3 . 8 % i n t h e s u b s e q u e n t weeks. Table E2 p r e s e n t s t h e telephone interview r e s u l t s f o r v a r i o u s g e o g r a p h i c a r e a s , by s e x , and by age group. T h i s shows t h a t t h e r e f u s a l problem was n o t g r e a t e r i n D e t r o i t t h a n e l s e where among d r i v e r s w i t h p u b l i s h e d t e l e p h o n e n u h e r s , b u t D e t r o i t d i d have above a v e r a g e p r o p o r t i o n s o f o t h e r problems ( d i s c o n n e c t e d , away, ill, e t c . ) . The h i g h e s t r e s p o n s e r a t e was o b t a i n e d i n r e l a t i v e l y w e a l t h y Oakland and Kacornb C o u n t i e s ( 9 4 . 1 % ) . However, none of t h e r e s p o n s e r a t e d i f f e r e n c e s seem s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t i n r e l a t i o n t o geographic a r e a , nor i n r e l a t i o n t o age o r s e x , a l t h o u g h it i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o n o t e t h a n none of t h e 9 1 a v a i l a b l e r e s p o n d e n t s under 2 5 r e f u s e d t o be interviewed. I f one d r o p s t h e 1.3 u n a v a i l a b l e r e s p o n d e n t s ( s i c k , away, e t c . ) and t h e 2 2 d i s c o n n e c t e d , moved, o r wrong number c a s e s from t h e t e l e p h o n e sample, t h e n t h e t e l e p h o n e r e s p o n s e r a t e improves t o t h e v e r y i m p r e s s i v e 370/398, o r 9 3 . 0 % . Two o f t h e s e i n t e r v i e w s were o n l y p a r t i a l , and one of t h e s e r e s p o n d e n t s l a t e r completed a m a i l q u e s t i o n n a i r e .
TABLE E2.
Telephone Survey R e s u l t s by Geographic Area, Sex, and Age, i n P e r Cent
GEOGRAPHIC AREA Detroit City Ten O t h e r Large C i t i e s Large Suburbs O t h e r Communities Wayne County O t h e r 5 D e t r o i t Area Counties Genesee, Ingham, Kent Counties O t h e r C e n t r a l SMSA Counties
N
InterAway, S i c k , D i s c o n n e c t e d , viewed Refused No Answer Moved, E t c . 68.4 85.2 90.6 86.6 76.7 94.1 5.3 10.5 15.8
38 61
74
260 90
Oakland, Macomb C o u n t i e s 1 0 1
Other Suburban SMSA C o u n t i e s and C o u n t i e s w i t h C i t i e s Over 15,000 5 1 Other Rural Counties
SEX
88.2 80.0
55
Male Female
AGE
TOTAL
Mail Survey Response Rates
A s mentioned above, nonrespondents t o t h e t e l e p h o n e s u r v e y
-
and d r i v e r s i n t h e t e l e p h o n e sample w i t h o u t a l i s t e d t e l e p h o n e number viere s e n t a m a i l q u e s t i o n n a i r e along w i t h t h e 300 d r i v e r s i n t h e r e s e r v e sample.
A s demonstrated i n Table E3,
t h e multiwave m a i l i n g s produced r e s p o n s e s from more than h a l f of t h e t e l e p h o n e r e f u s a l s and l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n s o f t h e o t h e r t e l e p h o n e nonrespondents, s o t h a t t h e f i n a l t e l e p h o n e and m a i l r e s p o n s e r a t e f o r t h e sample w i t h p u b l i s h e d t e l e p h o n e numbers came t o 396/416 o r an amazing 95.2%. For d r i v e r s w i t h u n l i s t e d numbers t h e f i n a l m a i l r e s p o n s e r a t e was a q u i t e s a t i s f a c t o r y 8 4 , 3 % , b u t it dropped down t o 75.0% f o r t h e d r i v e r s w i t h no t e l e p h o n e number i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e . Presumably t h i s l a t t e r group c o n t a i n e d l a r g e r p r o p o r t i o n s of p o o r e r and l e s s e d u c a t e d p o t e n t i a l r e s p o n d e n t s who were less l i k e l y t o complete t h e m a i l q u e s t i o n n a i r e evemeafter -four mai3ings. Also one doesn ' t know how d i l i g e n t t h e p o s t o f f i c e workers were i n r e t u r n i n g unclaimed c e r t i f i e d l e t t e r s , and it may b e t h a t t h i s group c o n t a i n e d more d r i v e r s who have moved t h a n H S R I was n o t i f i e d about. The f i n a l t e l e p h o n e and m a i l r e s p o n s e r a t e f o r t h e e n t i r e t e l e p h o n e sample was 593/665 f o r an i m p r e s s i v e 89.2% ( e x c l u d i n g t h e 34 o u t of sample c a s e s ) . For t h e 292 non-moved d r i v e r s i n t h e r e s e r v e m a i l o n l y sample t h e f i n a l r e s p o n s e r a t e was 8 0 . 5 % , c e r t a i n l y a very s a t i s f a c t o r y r e t u r n r a t e f o r a m a i l s u r v e y . However, i t i s obvious t h a t t h e combination of t e l e p h o n e and m a i l methods was s u b s t a n t i a l l y more e f f e c t i v e i n producing a h i g h r e s p o n s e r a t e t h a n was t h e use of m a i l methods a l o n e . The t o t a l s u r v e y r e s p o n s e . r a t e f o r b o t h t h e t e l e p h o n e sample and t h e r e s e r v e m a i l o n l y sample came t o 829/957, o r an u n u s u a l l y high 8 6 . 6 % . T h i s r a t e e x c l u d e s t h e 42 out-of-sample c a s e s and i n c l u d e s one r e t u r n e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e which could n o t be i d e n t i f i e d , although it i s included i n t h e analyzed d a t a . The Return Envelope Experiment Not mentioned e a r l i e r was t h e f a c t t h a t t h r e e d i f f e r e n t t y p e s of r e t u r n envelopes were used i n t h e f i r s t q u e s t i o n n a i r e m a i l i n g on June 27-28. D r i v e r s w i t h i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers ending i n 0 , 1 , 3 , o r 9 were s e n t a r e t u r n e n v e l ~ p ew i t h a f i r s t E9
-
-
TABLE E 3 ,
Mail Response R a t e s f o r Various Types
o f Telephone Sample Nonrespondents and f o r t h e Reserve Mail Only Sample
N
Questionnaire No Out o f * Response Returned Response Sample ate' 12
4 1
Telephone R e f u s a l Telephone Away Telephone S i c k
23 5
4
112
1
0
0
52.2% 80.0% 33.3%
100.0%
2 0 0
4
1
0
Telephone Hard of Hearing .2" Telephone Language Problem 1 Telephone Retarded Telephone Disconnected o r Moved Telephone P a r t i a l Interview Telephone No Answer
-
2 0
4
1
1 2
---50.0%
10
5
117
3
91
1 05
2 17l 35l
73
0
U n l i s t e d Telephone
No Telephone I n f o r m a t i o n 1 6 0 T o t a l Telephone Sample T o t a l Mail Only Sample
TOTAL MAIL RESPONDENTS
g3 204
33
85
60.0% 84.3%
75.0% 75.4% 80.5%
330 300
2 24 235
57
TOTAL SURVEY RESULTS (Telephone and M a i l )
999
82g6
1 29
42
86.6%
* Out
of sample i n c l u d e s 25 c a s e s of l e t t e r s r e t u r n e d by t h e p o s t - . o f f i c e w i t h no f o r w a r d i n g a d d r e s s ; 15 c a s e s o f unclaimed c e r t i f i e d l e t t e r s ; 1 c a s e of a s i c k p e r s o n whose w i f e s e n t a n o t e s a y i n g h e was t o o s i c k ; and l a c a s e of a t e l e p h o n e r e s p o n d e n t who had l e f t hone and whose whereabouts were unknown.
la he r e s p o n s e r a t e i s t h e number of q u e s t i o n n a i r e s r e t u r n e d o v e r
t h e number of q u e s t i o n n a i r e s m a i l e d , e x c l u d i n g t h e o u t of sample cases. ' ~ n c l u d e s one r e f u s e d l e t t e r . 2 ~ n c l u d e stwo r e f u s e d l e t t e r s . 3 ~ n c l u d e sf i v e unclaimed c e r t i f i e d l e t t e r s . 4 ~ n c l u d e sseven unclaimed c e r t i f i e d l e t t e r s . 5 ~ n c l u d e st h r e e unclaimed c e r t i f i e d l e t t e r s . ~ n c l u d e sone q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e c e i v e d which coulcl n o t b e i d e n t i f i e d . 7~xcludes one m a i l nonrespondent f o r whom a p a r t i a l t e l e p h o n e i n t e r v i e w had been o b t a i n e d .
c l a s s O l i v e r Wendell Holmes stamp a f f i x e d t o i t . e n v e l o p e marked "NO POSTAGE NECESSARY p a i d by stating [addressee]".
Drivers with
i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers ending i n 4 , 6 , o r 8 were s e n t a metered P o s t a g e h a s been p r e D r i v e r s w i t h i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers
A l l envelopes A l l outside
-
e n d i n g i n 2 , 5, o r 7 were s e n t a normal B u s i n e s s Feply e n v e l o p e
"POSTAGE WILL BE P A I D BY ADDRESSEE".
were a d d r e s s e d t o " P u b l i c Opinion Survey S e c t i o n , 111 H . S . R . I . ,
UNIVERSITY OF M I C H I G A N , Ann Arbor, Mich. 48109".
e n v e l o p e s had a f f i x e d t o them a 156 O l i v e r Wendell Holmes stamp. Table E 4 shows t h e c u m u l a t i v e r e s p o n s e r a t e s f o r t h e s e d i f f e r e n t e n v e l o p e groups f o r seven t i m e p e r i o d s f o l l o w i n g t h e June 27 m a i l i n g . By J u l y 6 , b e f o r e t h e reminder p o s t c a r d could have had any e f f e c t , o n l y 14.6% of t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s had been r e t u r n e d , b u t t h e s e r e t u r n s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r i n t h e s t a n p e d group ( 1 8 . 6 % ) t h a n i n t h e metered group ( 1 0 . 8 % ) , w h i l e t h e b u s i n e s s r e p l y group f e l l i n t h e middle (14.2%)
.
Xoving on
t o look a t t h e f u l l p e r i o d b e f o r e J u l y 2 1 ( t h e second m a i l i n g was on J u l y 1 8 ) , t h e r e s u l t s from t h e i n i t i a l m a i l i n g p l u s t h e reminder p o s t c a r d were s t i l l s i g n i f i c a n t l y f a v o r a b l e t o t h e stamped e n v e l o p e s ( 5 2 . 5 % ) compared t o t h e metered e n v e l o p e s (40.2)
.
The b u s i n e s s r e p l y group m a i n t a i n e d i t s i n t e r m e d i a t e
p o s i t i o n w i t h a c o n s i d e r a b l y lower r e t u r n r a t e ( 4 5 . 3 % ) t h a n t h e stamped group, b u t t h i s d i f f e r e n c e was n o t l a r g e enough t o b e s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t a t a 95% l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e .
A s can
b e s e e n i n Table E 4 t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s remain g e n e r a l l y s i m i l a r when one compares t h e t h r e e component subsamples w i t h i n t h e t h r e e envelope groups. significant I n p a r t i c u l a r , t h e s u p e r i o r i t y of t h e stamped e n v e l o p e o v e r t h e metered e n v e l o p e i s s t i l l s t a t i s t i c a l l y when one compares t h e m a i l o n l y subsamples.
I t was t h o u g h t t h a t p e r h a p s t h e r e might be some d i f f e r e n c e s
i n t h e e d u c a t i o n a l background and income l e v e l s o f d r i v e r s who would respond t o t h e d i f f e r e n t t y p e s of e n v e l o p e s , i n p a r t i c u l a r t h a t metered e n v e l o p e r e s p o n d e n t s might b e of somewhat h i g h e r socio-economic s t a t u s . However, a comparison of e d u c a t i o n and income l e v e l s f o r t h e t h r e e t y p e s o f f i r s t m a i l i n g r e s p o n d e n t s showed s i m i l a r e d u c a t i o n and income d i s t r i b u t i o n s f o r t h e metered e n v e l o p e and t h e stamped e n v e l o p e r e s p o n d e n t s .
Ell
Both c f
TABLE P 4 .
c u m u l a t i v e Mail R e s p o n s e R a t e s f o r t h e Three Return Envelope Samples a n d T h e i r Component S u b s a m p l e s for S e v e n Time P e r i o d s , i n P e r c e n t *
N
J u n 3 0 J u l y 7 J u l l O J u 1 2 1 J u 1 2 4 Aug4 A u g 7 J u l y 6 J u l y 9 J u 1 2 0 J u 1 2 3 A u g . 3 Aug6 S e p t
-52.5 28.6 57.5 52.6 40.2 21.1 48.1 37.8 45.3 31.3 44.0 48.5 45.9 54.4 28.6 60.9 53.7 44.8 21.1 50.6 44.9 45.8 31.3 44.0 49.5 48.3
STAMPED REPLY ENVELOPE Telephone Nonrespondent
204 18.6 21 4.8 87 1 6 . 1 95 24.2 194 10.8 19 5.3 77 11.7 98 11.2
26.5 9.5 24.1 31.6 17.5 21.1 18.2 16.3 18.9 12.5 17.3 21.2 21.1
68.1 38.1 77.0 66.3 68.6 52.6 64.9 74.5 67.9 62.5 69.3 67.7 68.0
69.1 82.4 38.1 52.4 78.2 89.7 67.4 8 2 . 1 69.1 74.7 52.6 57.9 66.2 70.1 74.5 81.6 70.0 77.4 62.5 75.0 70.7 76.0 70.7 78.8 69.2 78.2
No L i s t e d T e l e p h o n e No. Mail O n l y S a m p l e
METERED REPLY ENVELOPE Telephone Nonrespondent No L i s t e d T e l e p h o n e No.
Mail O n l y S a m p l e
BUSINESS REPLY ENVELOPE 1 9 0 1 4 . 2 TelephoneNonrespondent 16 6.3
No L i s t e d T e l e p h o n e No. Mail O n l y S a m p l e
TOTAL NAIL SURVEY
75 10.7 99 18.2 588 14.6
*E x c l u d e d
from t h i s t a b l e a r e 4 1 o u t - o f - s a R p l e cases a n d o n e case f o r w h i c h t h e d a t e of r e t u r n w a s n o t r e c o r d e d .
t h e s e groups were a l i t t l e h i g h e r i n income and e d u c a t i o n t h a n t h e b u s i n e s s r e p l y r e s p o n d e n t s , b u t t h e d i f f e r e n c e s were f a r from b e i n g s i g n i f i c a n t a t a 9 5 % l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e . Thus t h e main c o n c l u s i o n o f t h i s envelope e x p e r i m e n t i s t h a t it
-
is
worth t h e e x t r a t r o u b l e t o a f f i x a stamp t o t h e T h i s f i n d i n g a g r e e s w i t h an e a r l i e r s t u d y by
r e t u r n envelope r a t h e r t h a n j u s t running t h e e n v e l o p e s through a meter machine. FJolfe ( J o u r n a l of ? , d v e r t i s i n g R e s e a r c h , Feb. 1979) which found t h a t stamped e n v e l o p e s e l i c i t e d a h i g h e r r e t u r n r a t e t h a n metered e n v e l o p e s . I n t h a t s t u d y two t y p e s of stamps had been used, a commemorative one (Legend of Sleepy ~ o l l o w )and a r e g u l a r one ( J e f f e r s o n Memorial), and t h e commemorative one had proved s u p e r i o r i n i t s r e s p o n s e r a t e ( b u t n o t enough s o t o b e statistically significant). However, a s t u d y by b i l l m a n ( P u b l i c Opinion Q u a r t e r l y , Summer 1972) found v e r y l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e i n r e s p o n s e r a t e f o r - a n e n v e l o p e wi'th a commemorative ecology stamp and f o r a metered envelope. In t h i s study t h e Oliver Wendell Holmes stamp had been i s s u e d a s a r e g u l a r stamp, b u t it might a l s o have had some commemorative e f f e c t s ( i f i n d e e d t h e r e r e a l l y a r e such e f f e c t s ) t o guess.
.
What d i f f e r e n c e i n r e t u r n r a t e might
have r e s u l t e d from a d i f f e r e n t f i r s t c l a s s stamp i s d i f f i c u l t The OWH stamp was more c o n v e n i e n t t o u s e because it However, i t might have been worth t h e s l i g h t was a v a i l a b l e i n r o l l s , w h i l e commemorative stamps a r e a v a i l a b l e only i n s h e e t s . t i v e stamp. T h i s s t u d y a l s o a g r e e s w i t h a number of p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s i n f i n d i n g a stamped r e t u r n envelope more e f f e c t i v e t h a n a b u s i n e s s r e p l y e n v e l o p e , a l t h o u g h t h i s d i f f e r e n c e was n o t l a r g e enough t o b e s i g n i f i c a n t a t a 95% l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e . S i n c e b u s i n e s s r e p l y e n v e l o p e s o n l y c o s t 276 p e r r e t u r n e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e (18.56 w i t h a $ 7 5 p e r m i t ) , t h e y have t h e advantage of b e i n g c h e a p e r t h a n stamped e n v e l o p e s f o r any i n i t i a l r e t u r n r a t e of l e s s t h a n 55.5%. N e v e r t h e l e s s , a l t h o u g h f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h would c l e a r l y b e d e s i r a b l e , i t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e r e s u l t s i n a h i g h e r r e s p o n s e r a t e a r e l i k e l y t o b e worth t h e e x t r a c o s t and t r o u b l e of a f f i x i n g a f i r s t c l a s s stamp on t h e r e t u r n envelope. added inconvenience t o have used a ( n o n c o n t r o v e r s i a l ) commemora-
.- . .
The Replacement Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Experiment The second e x p e r i n e n t i n v o l v e d t h e t h i r d m a i l i n g on J u l y 18. The nonrespondents i n t h e stamped r e t u r n e n v e l o p e group were s e n t a r e p l a c e m e n t q u e s t i o n n a i r e and a second stamped r e p l y e n v e l o p e , w h i l e t h e remaining nonrespondents were j u s t s e n t a reminder l e t t e r i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e y c o u l d c a l l c o l l e c t f o r a r e p l a c e m e n t q u e s t i o n n a i r e i f it were needed. The l a t t e r method s a v e d about 4 0 6 p e r r e s p o n d e n t i n p o s t a g e and q u e s t i o n naire costs. However, it d i d g e n e r a t e 1 2 c o l l e c t c a l l s which had t o b e p a i d f o r , p l u s t h e t r o u b l e and c o s t of s p e c i a l m a i l i n g s t o t h e s e 12 nonrespondents ( o u t o f a b o u t 220 nonrespondents i n t h i s group). Nine of t h e s e c a l l s came from t h e b u s i n e s s r e p l y group and t h r e e came from t h e metered group.
A l l t w e l v e of t h e s e d r i v e r s d i d r e t u r n t h e i r q u e s t i o n n a i r e s ,
w h i l e o n l y s i x o f t h e t e n d r i v e r s who r e q u e s t e d a r e p l a c e m e n t q u e s t i o n n a i r e a f t e r r e c e i v i n g t h e reminder p o s t c a r d a c t u a l l y returned t h e i r questionnaires.
A s c a n b e s e e n i n t h e f i f t h time p e r i o d column o f Table E 4 , by Aug. 3 t h i s second m a i l i n g had r e s u l t e 6 i n amazingly
s i m i l a r resDonse r a t e s f o r a l l t h r e e e n v e l o ~ eorauDs.
The
c u m u l a t i v e r e s p o n s e r a t e was 68.1% f o r t h e stamped e n v e l o p e group 6 8 . 6 % f o r t h e metered e n v e l o p e group ( I ) ,and 6 7 . 9 % f o r t h e b u s i n e s s r e p l y e n v e l o p e group. R a t h e r t h a n f u r t h e r i n c r e a s i n g t h e l e a d of t h e stamped e n v e l o p e group, t h e use o f t h e r e p l a c e m e n t q u e s t i o n n a i r e and stamped e n v e l o p e was a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a lower r e s p o n s e r a t e from remaining nonrespondents i n t h a t group t h a n i n t h e two groups which o n l y r e c e i v e d reminder
l e t t e r s . Between Zuly 21 and Aug. 3 ( t h e f o u r t h m a i l i n g was on Aug. 2-3) q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were r e c e i v e d from 33% o f t h e 9 7 nonrespondents i n t h e stamped e n v e l o p e group and from 44.5% of
t h e 220 nonrespondents i n t h e o t h e r two groups which o n l y r e c e i v e d a remin2er l e t t e r , a d i f f e r e n c e which i s a l m o s t s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . Thus it a p p e a r s t h a t t h e advantageous e f f e c t of a f f i x i n g a f i r s t c l a s s s t a n p i s somewhat t r a n s i t o r y and does n o t carry o v e r t o a follow-up m a i l i n g t o n o n r e s p o n d e n t s . And t h e s e r e s u l t s g i v e s t r o n g s u p p o r t t o t h e i d e a t h a t i t i s worth t h e a d d i t i o n a l c c s t t o r o u t i n e l y i n c l u d e a r e p l a c e m e n t q u e s t i o n n a i r e i n a f i r s t follow-up m a i l i n g t o n ~ n r e s p o n ~ e n t s .
nt o
The Second Follow-up M a i l i n g w i t h C e r t i f i e d L e t t e r s The second follow-up m a i l i n g c o n t a i n e d r e p l a c e m e n t q u e s t i o n n a i r e s and stamped r e t u r n e n v e l o p e s ( e x c e p t f o r a few metered and b u s i n e s s r e p l y e n v e l o p e s which were used up i n t h i s m a i l i n g ) .
I t was s e n t by c e r t i f i e d m a i l which meant adding an e x t r a 80#
p o s t a c ~ ep h s a CEKTIJ?IED:%ticker office.
a v a i l a b l e f r e e from t h e p o s t
C e r t i f i e d m a i l must b e s i g n e d f o r by someone a t t h e
a d d r e s s , o r e l s e it i s r e t u r n e d t o t h e p o s t o f f i c e and a r a t h e r c o n f u s i n g p i n k n o t i c e i s l e f t c a l l e d a " D e l i v e r y Reminder o r Receipt". I f one r e a d s t h e checked boxes on t h e form c a r e f u l l y , one can a s c e r t a i n t h a t he o r s h e h a s a c e r t i f i e d l e t t e r a t t h e p o s t o f f i c e which he o r s h e can p i c k up i n p e r s o n o r a s k t h e post office t o redeliver. The p o s t o f f i c e t e l e p h o n e number and
A c e r t i f i e d l e t t e r can a l s o
h o u r s of b u s i n e s s a r e a l s o l i s t e d .
b e forwarded by t h e p o s t o f f i c e l i k e r e g u l a r m a i l .
If a certi-
f i e d l e t t e r i s n o t c o l l e c t e d w i t h i n 15 days i t i s r e t u r n e d t o t h e s e n d e r . - For an a d d i t i o n a l f e e o f 4 5 6 one can a l s o g e t a r e t u r n r e c e i p t which comes back a s a p o s t c a r d showing t h e d a t e and s i g n a t u r e of t h e r e c e i v i n g p e r s o n ; b u t t h i s e x t r a expense was n o t deemed worthwhile i n t h i s s t u d y , and no r e c o r d was m a i n t a i n e d of t h e c e r t i f i c a t e numbers a s s i g n e d t o each r e s p o n d e n t . Thus t h e s o l e purpose of u s i n g c e r t i f i e d m a i l was t o g i v e an added s e n s e of importance t o t h e s u r v e y f o r t h o s e d r i v e r s who had n o t responded t o t h e t h r e e p r e v i o u s ris-il-ings.
I t apparently
R few of
had t h i s e f f e c t f o r a t l e a s t s0p.e o f t h e n o n r e s p o n d e n t s , f o r an a d d i t i c r i a l 59 q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were e v e n t u a l l y r e c e i v e d . t h e s e nay have c r o s s e d i n t h e m a i l o r would have been s e n t i n anyhow, b u t t h e e f f e c t of t h e c e r t i f i e d m a i l i n g was p r o b a b l y a t l e a s t an 8% i n c r e a s e i n t h e t o t a l m a i l r e s p o n s e r a t e . S i n c e t h e t o t a l m a i l i n g was o v e r 2 0 0 , t h e c o s t p e r c a s e f o r p o s t a g e and q u e s t i c n n a i r e was a b o u t $1.35, and a few o f t h e n wculd have been r e c e i v e d anyhow, one may e s t i m a t e t h e c o s t p e r r e c e i v e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e from t h e c e r t i f i e d n a i l i n g a t a b o u t $5.00--plus t h e c l e r i c a l c o s t i n a Z Z r e s s i n g and m a i l i n g . So even t h e s e " e x p e n s i v e " m a i l q u e s t i o n n a i r e s p r o b a b l y c o s t no more t h a n t h e average--ke%ephone i n t e r v i e w , and t h i s mililing d i d r e d u c e t h e number of remaining nonrespondents by more t h a n 25%.
The c e r t i f i e d r a i l i n g was made on Thursday, August 2 , and F r i d a y , August 3 , i n t h e hope t h a t t h e l e t t e r s would b e d e l i v e r e d on S a t u r d a y , August 4 , and t h a t a maximun number of a d d r e s s e e s would have some f a m i l y m e ~ b e rhome t c s i g n f o r them. Whether a S a t u r d a y i s r e a l l y an optimum time f o r d e l i v e r y i n b7ithout r e t u r n r e c e i p t s t h e r e i s no way of knowing how many n o n r e s p o n d e n t s a c t u a l l y r e c e i v e d t h e i r l e t t e r s on S a t u r d a y , and even w i t h r e t u r n e d r e c e i p t s one would n o t know how many had them r e d e l i v e r e d and how many went t o t h e post o f f i c e t o obtain then.
A s menticned e a r l i e r , 15
t h e summer i s n o t known.
l e t t e r s were r e t u n e d unclaimed, b u t how many of t h e s e r e p r e s e n t r e a l out-of-sample c a s e s and how many r e p r e s e n t j u s t n o t b o t h e r i n g t o go t o t h e p o s t o f f i c e i s i m p o s s i b l e t o a s c e r t a i n . Two l e t t e r s were s e n t back a s r e f u s e d , i n c l u d i n g one from a d r i v e r who had e a r l i e r r e f u s e d a t e l e p h o n e i n t e r v i e w . Also t h e c e r t i f i e d m a i l i n g e l i c i t e d n o t e s from two of t h e t h r e e r e s p o n d e ~ t swho had c r o s s e 2 o u t t h e i r q u e s t i o n n a i r e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers, and t h e s e n o t e s e n a b l e d t h e i r q u e s t i o n n a i r e s t o b e i d e n t i f i e d p r o p e r l y . One of t h e s e n o t e s a l s o complained a b o u t t h e h i g h c o s t of t h e c e r t i f i e d m a i l i n g , and i n d e e d one does u s e t h i s method w i t h a c e r t a i n amount o f t r e p i d a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g p o s s i b l e b a c k f i r i n g e f f e c t s from r e c i p i e n t s b e i r g t u r n e 2 o f f by t h e h i g h m a i l i n g c o s t o r by having t o make a s p e c i a l t r i p t o t h e p o s t o f f i c e . I t would b e n i c e t o have some more d e t a i l e 6 r e s e a r c h a s t o what happens t o c e r t i f i e d l e t t e r s and how t h e y a r e p e r c e i v e d by t h e i r r e c i p i e n t s , b u t i n t h e meantime t h e r e i s e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e methcd does work t o i n c r e a s e response r a t e s s u b s t a n t i a l l y . Whether t h i s i n c r e a s e i n d a t a q u a n t i t y l e a d s t o s u f f i c i e n t improvement i n d a t a q u a l i t y ( i n terms o f a c c u r a c y c f r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e sampled p o p u l a t i o n ) t o j u s t i f y t h e h i g h c o s t of t h e c e r t i f i e d m a i l i n g
i s more d i f f i c u l t t o e v a l u a t e .
SAMPLE CONTROL FORM
; I ~ ? I2,- 2 'I ? H I L L 2 I N 3 i ' 2 C T I C ? ~ S r l F V E Y C O G T E O L F C Z Y 2 3 17222 S p r i n g , 1979
I,? :lo.
373 (1-3)
C o u n t y--33
Sex
(4-5)
2
63
4
(6)
[7-8)
-
iDSEESS:
5303 n Lansinq,
fi
VE.
-3 Jf
Yic:,,
Qi391d
s'lsa
(9)
" ~ l s p h o n c tlunbcr: 1 517 ) ----( 1 7 i r e c - o r y ; 2 3 i r . Assistdnce; 3 Told IJnlis:*cl;
2 E L 3 P E n : i E CALL 32C0FL3
-
city
4 Sone) SOII~CE
----
113)
(11)
--
- +---
call 1 I
+------
T-7-
1 3: at
I/_---
+-----+----I-
1 J a y I Tize I ? e s u l t ~f :h& ? ~ l e p h o n e D i a l i n g
7 7 -
---------
: J u n b e r cr' ?Z?E p h o n ~C a l l :
F i n a l T ~ i ~ p h o e s~ 1 1 t Sn 3
3 a y s from L ~ t L , e r; l a i l i n q : To F i r s t Call
Q-JEliP;, I3;lK-=I k E : j . i I L i X ' ;
(12-13)
------
114)
(15-16)
(17- 1 8 )
FECGF3
TO L a s t Call
-----
---------1 2
3
i
i
r---
,- - - - - - - .
J Date E e c t i v z d $ --------------
---+--------------1
+--------I 1
1
Ddtr S a i l e d
F ~ s u l ro f 7 . k ~ Y a i l i i ? . ~
+- --------
I
1
$
--------
+-$
I
+--I
---$---------
I I
-.-
------ -------
--------
--
1
-.----- - - -
$- --
----
-
4
-
L -
1
I
-----J.,-,--
1
Number ~f G u c s t i o n n a i r e Y a i l i n a s
(19)
fii~!llt
F i n a l Q u e z t i o n : ~ a i z i ;!ai?iilc]
---
(23)
Days from Posting t Receipt of Questionnaire o
-
(24)