"Respect on the Road": Mott MacDonald Literature Review

How does behaviour differ between road users e.g. car users, van drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrians, and why?

Introduction

This section looks at the different behaviours of road users. It looks mainly at car users, but also at van drivers (or commercial vehicle drivers in general), cyclists and pedestrians. There is little in the way of academic reporting on road users apart from car drivers.

This section has also been used as a means of trying to attempt to define the extent of the problem of disrespectful or aggressive driving. Much of the information is based on survey work because, as we have seen earlier, difficulties in defining the terms have stifled the collection of meaningful data. Because the available information is often survey-based, the results are frequently contradictory. The size of the sample and the location of the survey are factors that need to be accounted for.

A) Car drivers

Despite the above difficulties with defining the issue and collating data relating to road rage and aggressive driving, there are many available data sources which help to paint a picture of the extent of the problem. However, it is worth remembering that because there are problems with defining the issue, the ability to define who are the victims and who are the perpetrators is limited. For example, research has provided different definitions of the extent of the problem. Lajunen and Parker (2001) summarise a range of research in the UK which suggest that 90% of drivers had been involved in a 'road rage' incident in the last year, 44% of drivers had experienced verbal abuse in the previous 12 months, and 60% admitted losing their temper while driving. There is often some degree of overlap between those people who are victims and those people who are perpetrators.

Extent of the Problem - who are the victims?

Joint (1995) quotes research by the Automobile Association which found that 90% of the 526 motorists questioned had experienced 'road rage' (though it does not state whether the experience was as a victim or as a perpetrator). In the same AA research sixty percent had admitted losing their tempers behind the wheel.

Marshall and Thomas (2000) report findings from the British Crime Survey of 1998. (Being the 1998 data, this information is likely to be out of date. Potentially, the information could be updated on an annual basis as long as the same questions are included. A similar question relating to anti-social behaviour whilst driving was asked in the 2001 survey.) Three questions concerning aggressive driving behaviour were included in one of the follow up sections to the 1998 BCS. The results showed that:

• 54% of all respondents who had driven a car or van in the last twelve months had been victim of some form of road rage
• 52% had experienced verbal abuse or gestures from another driver
• 9% said they had been forced to pull over or forced off the road completely; there were no differences between the genders
• 3% said another driver had got out of their car and threatened them with violence
• Men were more likely than women to have experienced road rage over the last twelve months (57% compared to 50%)
• Risks were significantly higher amongst both men and women aged 25-44 (66% of men and 58% of women)
• Men were more likely to have been victims of verbal abuse and gesturing than women (55% compared to 48%)

A media analysis carried out by Marshall and Thomas (2000) reported that there were 45 single incidents of aggressive driving and road rage reported on during the year of the study (1996). A further fifteen reported on during 1996 related to incidents which had occurred in previous years. The analysis of the sixty incidents (the total of the incidents reported during 1996, regardless of whether the incident occurred in 1996) is presented, by the type of behaviour, in the table below.

Behaviour	Number of incidents	% of the 60 incidents*
Dangerous driving	24	40
Assault	22	37
Argument	13	22
Damage	13	22
Verbal abuse	12	20
Crash / accident	10	17
Obscene / aggressive gestures	8	13
Flashing headlights	7	12
Horn	7	12
Chasing / tailgating	7	12
Non known	3	5

* numbers will add up to more than 60, and percentages to more than 100, due to multiple counting of behaviours involved in single incidents.

Because the number of incidents is relatively small, it is important to treat these figures with caution. However it would appear that dangerous driving is the most common form of incident, followed by assault. Lower level incidents, such as obscene or aggressive gestures, flashing lights or horn using would appear to be less frequent. The issue regarding definition is important here, however, as the term 'dangerous driving' could in fact include any of the other forms of behaviours based on some of the academic definitions.

The document also makes reference to the outcome of the incident, although no correlation is made between the type of incident and the outcome. Therefore it is impossible to know whether, for example, a driver flashing their headlights has far more serious consequences.

Consequence	Number of incidents	% of the 60 incidents*
Injury	29	48
Damage	13	22
Death	12	20
Attempted murder	1	2
None / not known	14	23

* numbers will add up to more than 60, and percentages to more than 100, due to multiple counting of behaviours involved in single incidents.

The table shows that injury is the most frequent consequence, followed by damage and death. Clearly there is an issue here related to those incidents which are reported by the media, as usually the most sensational stories are concentrated upon. As the authors themselves note, "...the media sample with over represent the serious violent cases." They comment further that:

"National newspaper reporting would suggest that behaviour in road rage incidents is a serious problem. However, the incidence and prevalence of road rage is not accurately captured by newspaper reports. Incidents reported in the national press reflect the propensity of newspapers to report those cases likely to be 'newsworthy'."

They define newsworthiness as "...the tendency to report crimes at the serious end of the spectrum, as well as cases involving famous people." As such this study of news reports must be treated with caution because almost all of the 'day-to-day' incidents of aggressive driving and disrespectful driving will be ignored by media reports.

Marshall and Thomas (2000) report in their analysis of the British Crime Survey and the media search that "...older victims may be more likely to be a road rage victim." However, it is possible that this is "...an artefact of the extent of their road use; indeed road rage victimisation might be expected to be highest among those who use the roads most often." They point to earlier DETR research which suggested that among males, those aged 30-59 were the heaviest road users. Marshall and Thomas (2000) make the point that, for females, "...road rage victimisation patterns found in this study are potentially related to both risk of stranger violence generally and the extent of road use..." whilst for males, victimisation is related only to road use.

Marshall and Thomas (2000) have a summary of results from the British Crime Survey, and also a summary of media-reported incidents. The British Crime Survey data is of limited use being from 1998, whilst the media summary looked at reports from 1996. Additionally, the media reports, by their nature, only looked at the most extreme acts of aggressive driving and road rage. The small number of news reports available mean that any conclusions drawn from the data are likely to be of limited applicability to other research.

Elliott (1999) suggests that males under 30 are disproportionately likely to be both offenders and victims. Associated with age is the fact that younger drivers are comparatively inexperienced. Elliott quotes one study which suggested that the risk of being a victim peaked at the age of 18-34 and the risk was three times greater for males. Deffenbacher et al (1994) also support this finding, with research that younger drivers are more likely to be angry at having their progress impeded, angry at the reckless driving of another, and become provoked by the direct hostility of another driver. Those with higher levels of safety skills (which are more likely to be older drivers with experience) are less likely to be angry because of impeded travel or the direct hostility of another driver.

Despite these attempts to categorise road rage or aggressive driving victims by age, Mizell (undated) makes the point that "...insurance reports clearly illustrate that anyone can be targeted and victimized." He also notes that "...there is no one profile of the so-called 'aggressive driver'."

Mizell (undated) is a non-academic source (a commentary on the American Automobile Association website), and as such must be treated with caution given that he represents a pro-motoring organisation. Despite this, his summary regarding who could be targeted and victimised is valid. His discussion regarding driving coping strategies is also useful and of relevance to this report.

The extent to which the problem is increasing is another area of discussion in the literature. Some authors believe that the problem has been around as long as people have had cars, whilst others think it is a relatively recent phenomenon. This again is likely to depend on the definition of the terms road rage and aggressive driving. Smart et al (2005: 195) attempted to find out whether the issue was increasing in magnitude based on a study in Ontario. They discovered that "...The prevalence of any road rage victimization in the previous year decreased significantly from 47.5% in 2001 to 40.6% in 2003, while prevalence of any road rage perpetration remained stable (31.0% to 33.6%). Logistic regression analyses revealed that the odds of experiencing any road rage victimization was 33% higher in 2001 and 30% higher in 2002, than in 2003." It should be noted that these results were drawn from a database which was the result of a repeated cross-sectional telephone survey in Ontario.

Smart et al (2005) rely on self-reported information which may or may not be related to reality. It also purports to be a longitudinal study based on just three year's worth of data. The data was also collected in Ontario, so the results may not be applicable to driving conditions in Britain. As such it is of limited use; such 'longitudinal' analysis should therefore be carried out on a much broader geographical basis, and a longer timescale, particularly given that the literature points to the existence of road rage and aggressive driving over the course of many decades.

Extent of the Problem - Who are the perpetrators?

In the same way that there is confusion about who the victims are, there is also some confusion in the literature as to who the perpetrators are. This is potentially due once again to confusion in the definition. Wells-Parker et al (2002) indicated that 'most' respondents to their survey reported having engaged in verbal expressions of annoyance, though very few people reported a direct confrontation with another driver. The extent to which people are involved in aggressive driving or road rage therefore depends on the definition.

It seems to be accepted that the higher level road rage is more often perpetrated by young males, whilst research has shown that there is little gender difference in terms of lower level anti-social behaviour on the road. However, different surveys and academic papers reveal different socio-demographic characteristics of perpetrators.

Parker and Stradling (2001), and Stradling and Meadows (2000) rated violations on a six-point scale from "never" to "nearly all the time", using the following statements:

• How often do you:
• Disregard the speed limits late at night or early in the morning?
• Cross a junction knowing that the traffic lights have already turned against you?
• Drive especially close to the car in front as a signal to its driver to go faster or get out of the way?
• Get impatient with a slow driver and overtake on the inside?
• Get involved in unofficial "races" with other drivers?
• Have an aversion to a particular class of road user, and indicate your hostility by whatever means you can?
• Angered by another driver's behaviour, you give chase with the intention of giving them "a piece of your mind"?
• Drive even though you realise you may be over the legal blood-alcohol limit?

The report noted that drivers who exhibited such behaviour were:

• More likely to be male
• More likely to be younger drivers
• More likely to be high-mileage drivers
• More likely to have been accident involved in the past and again in the future
• More likely to run into others and put themselves into situations where others run into them

Parker and Stradling (2001) is an unbiased report, published by the DETR. There is a limited discussion of methodology in the report so it would be difficult to replicate, but it is a useful and useable report which is referenced in a number of other reports cited in this document.

The results of the Marshall and Thomas (2000) study supported previous research "...which suggests that men are more likely to perpetrate acts of aggression on the roads", but acknowledge that other studies report little gender differences "...due to differences in the definitions of what constitutes road rage, also the media sample with over represent the serious violent cases." Their analysis of media reports showed that the majority of perpetrators were aged 16-29 and this was "...consistent with previous research... those aged between 20 and 24 years were most likely to engage in aggressive driving. By contrast, those in the 45 to 64 age group, and those over 65, were less likely to engage in all forms of aggressive driving."

Forward (2004) reports that individuals differ in their propensity towards aggression, and that young males in particular have been "...noted for their high level of aggression." She quotes from work carried out by Marsh and Collett that indicated a quarter of the young male drivers in the study aged 17-25 would chase another driver if they had been offended. There is an element, she says, of 'macho personality'; "...young macho men assigned greater importance to speed and sportiness of a car and reported significantly more driving aggression than young non-macho men."

Lajunen and Parker (2001: 245) also support this hypothesis in their summary of literature. They found that the literature pointed towards an increased accident liability among young drivers, and they drive faster, use shorter following distances and are more likely than older drivers to violate traffic lights. They postulate that younger drivers "...are more prone to get annoyed by other drivers and react in a more violent way than older drivers". It is worth noting the difference, however, between this research and the research of Forward (2004), for example. Lajunen and Parker make reference to younger drivers as a whole, whilst Forward (and other literature) pick out young male drivers for special consideration.

Lajunen and Parker (2001) also make reference to the issue that driving experience might have a role to play. Clearly, in most cases, the age of the driver and their level of experience are related, as older drivers are more likely to have more experience, having passed their test longer ago. As a result, the authors argue, older drivers are less likely to take offence and react aggressively. The authors tie in exposure to road conditions with driving experience, and suggest that older drivers are less likely to become frustrated with traffic conditions, as they develop coping strategies (such as driving style and reserving more time for the journey). They suggest (though this is something which seems to go against conventional wisdom relating to the cost of insurance premiums) that drivers with a high annual mileage are more likely to be frequently exposed to conflicts and traffic conditions, and are therefore more able to cope with such situations.

The consensus that it is young male drivers who are most frequently involved in 'road rage' has, however, been contested by some research, both in terms of gender and age. "...There is little difference between men and women with regard to their emotional reaction to being treated badly in traffic".^[7] The precise form of the 'emotional reaction' is not defined. Dr Timo Lajunen, a traffic psychologist, suggests that "...in a car, women can behave badly as well... In a car, it's the power of the car which matters, not the muscles."^[8]

Lajunen and Parker (2001: 253) note that, in terms of their study:

"Verbal aggression seemed to have a more important role among female drivers than among men. This might indicate that verbal aggression and being argumentative is generalised to driving behaviour as well. Surprisingly, no differences in the role of physical anger were found between men and women. It might have been expected that physical aggression would have stronger links to aggressive driver behaviour among men than women. One explanation of the similar role of general aggressiveness in driver aggression for both sexes might be that even the most aggressive respondents reported mainly mild forms of aggressive driver behaviour... Sounding the horn, flashing the lights or hand gestures are usually relatively safe ways of expressing one's anger and do not lead to physical confrontation. Since women have been found to be more concerned about the risk of retaliation and physical or psychological damage than men... and aggression on the roads very seldom contains severe risk, it may be that large differences between men and women should not be expected."

Forward (2004) also notes that, in terms of lower level anti-social behaviour on the road ('mild aggression' which she describes as horn honking and fist shaking), there is little difference between the genders. The only difference comes with age, in that young female drivers are more likely to display this sort of behaviour than older men. She suggests that this is consistent with other surveys which show women experience anger (generally, and not specifically related to road rage or road aggression) just as frequently as men. Studies relating to anger expression have also shown few differences between the genders, although "...the frequency of both anger and aggression is very similar the reasons and the manner in which it is expressed us not." She gives the example that women report more anger than men following condescending remarks, whilst men are more likely to get into physical fights, damage property and verbally assault people.

Yagil (1998a) found that women were more likely to see traffic laws as important, clear and reasonable, and they therefore had a stronger sense of obligation to obey them. Women therefore comply with them even when non-compliance was perceived as not being risky. Men were found to overestimate their driving skills and feel more confident about selectively complying with the laws. Young males were found in particular to find traffic laws as annoying and exaggerated, and underestimate the risks associated with traffic violations.

Conventional wisdom, supported by some research, suggests that males are more likely to be involved in serious accidents, due to their driving styles (violations such as speeding, drink-driving and risk-taking). The results suggested by Forward (2004) therefore suggest that this increased level of aggression amongst female drivers may have an impact on such statistics. Additionally, the level to which young women drink is becoming a concern in many quarters, and this may well have an impact on the extent to which women become involved in drink-driving.

Responses to the survey by Wells-Parker et al (2002) found that:

"Most drivers indicated that they had on occasions given another driver a dirty look, and about 40% indicated that they had honked or yelled through a window at another driver out of annoyance... only 16% admitted to a more provocative form of anger expression by making obscene gestures toward other drivers, and only 10% admitted to escalation of aggression to actually thinking about hurting another driver. Less than 1% reported frequently making obscene gestures or often thinking about hurting another driver... males had higher scores than females; younger drivers had higher scores than older drivers... respondents with lower levels of education reported lower verbal/frustration expression... No statistically significant racial of ethnic differences emerged... respondents with lower levels of income tended to have lower scores on the verbal expression subscale than those with higher incomes."

Wells-Parker et al (2002) contains a large sample looking at self-reported aggression. The sample was nationally representative, but being self reported data the validity can be questioned. The survey data is nearly ten years old, and also American, so the applicability of the results elsewhere might be difficult.

Parker and Stradling (2001) report on the gender of drivers in terms of active crash involvement (i.e. when the driver is the cause of the crash). They found that when driving carefully, male drivers are more at risk that female drivers (18% compared to 12%, though males report a 50% higher mileage). When adopting a high violating manner of driving, female drivers more than double (from 12% to 25%) and male drives increase by a half (18% to 25%) their risk of active crash involvement. Such research would seem to contradict the extent to which female drivers are 'safer' even when driving aggressively.

Forward (2004) includes some analysis of results measuring the response to different anger provoking situations. The situations were:

• hostile gestures
• illegal driving
• discourtesy
• slow driving
• police presence

She concludes that the youngest group (17-25) experienced more anger when another driver acted in a hostile manner, showed discourtesy and were driving too slowly. She noted that the oldest age group (62-72) were angrier than the other two groups (17-25 and 45-56) at illegal driving. Men and women, aged 17-25, experienced a similar amount of anger, although women found illegal drivers more provoking than men. Women aged 45-56 were significantly more angry if another driver behaved in a hostile manner towards them, if they broke the rules and if their behaviour was discourteous. These issues also applied to the oldest age group.

The youngest group also expressed more anger when another driver acted in a hostile manner, showed discourtesy and were driving too slowly. Illegal driving made both the oldest and the youngest group react in a stronger way compared to the middle group.

Further actions (sub-divisions of the situations listed above) were tested to see how people would react. These actions were:

• hostile gestures: someone makes and obscene gesture towards you about your driving
• illegal driving: someone does not stop at a stop sign
• discourtesy: someone takes the parking spot you have been waiting for
• slow driving: a slow vehicle on a winding road will not pull over and let people pass

Most of the respondents would react if someone took their parking spot or if a slow vehicle did not pull over. A fairly high proportion would also react if someone made an obscene gesture to themselves, if they did not stop at a sign and if they were weaving in and out of traffic. In terms of differences between the age groups, young drivers found weaving in and out of traffic more provoking, whilst older drivers were more likely to react if someone did not stop at a stop sign.

Amongst respondents aged 17-25, women expressed a little less anger than men regarding hostile gestures, whilst women aged 45-56 expressed a little less anger than men regarding slow drivers.

The indication, therefore, that the youngest age group experienced more anger, may be a result of the younger group being more provoked if other drivers act in a hostile and discourteous manner or drove too slowly. The older age groups became angrier if other drivers did not follow the rules. In summarising her results, Forward notes that traditionally young men rather than young women are noted for aggressive driving, whilst in her study the difference between the genders was not very great and if anything the difference pointed in the opposite direction. That is, women were more provoked than men, particularly in relation to drivers who deviated from the rules. Only slow driving significantly provoked men more than women.

Forward's results supported earlier research which suggested that women tended to experience more anger as a reaction to condescending remarks, though in her study such "remarks" included obscene gestures, shouted or beeped at other drivers. The results also supported the notion that young female drivers were more aggressive than older men; "...the manner in which their anger was expressed was not different which contradicts other studies looking at gender differences..."

Forward (2004) is a useful document, containing primary research, using a proven British questionnaire from a previous study with a sizeable sample of 1800 people, leading to a robust piece of research. However, this survey is based on Swedish results, so the data may not be applicable to other countries. Being based on a British questionnaire, there are also issues regarding cultural differences, translations etc, and even the extent to which questions designed for British audiences are applicable elsewhere.

The danger of gender stereotyping young aggressive drivers as usually being male was cautioned against by Deffenbacher et al (2003: 716), whose research indicated that young male and female drivers were "...more alike than different, especially in terms of their anger and aggressive tendencies." Dukes et al (2001) also suggest that although the majority of aggressive drivers are men aged between 18 and 26, they are not the only aggressive group. (The extent to which the authors were able to support this suggestion was limited by the fact that their survey looked at undergraduates only.) They quote research by the American Automobile Association (1995^[9]) which found that 54% of female respondents admitted that sometimes they drove aggressively. Deffenbacher et al (1994) found that young men and women exhibited equal driving anger, though the object of their anger was different. Women were angrier about traffic obstructions and illegal driving whilst men were angrier about police presence and slow driving.

Lajunen and Parker (2001: 253) summarise their research into gender and show that "...men endorse instrumental beliefs about aggression to a greater extent than women whereas women endorse expressive beliefs more than men... men commit dangerous traffic violations and behave aggressively on the roads more frequently... than women do."

Early research by Parry (1968) found that aggressiveness was twice as high amongst male drivers aged 17-35 than middle aged drivers, whilst aggression amongst female drivers aged 17-35 were the same as middle aged male drivers.

Hauber (1980) found that there were negligible differences between male and female aggression observed at pedestrian crossings. Younger drivers were more likely to be aggressive than older drivers.

Elliott (1999) argues that perpetrators are "...quite likely to be men, and especially younger males, who accept violence as a problem solving technique... This finding can also be generalised to other forms of assault."

Research by Lajunen and Parker (2001) support the concept that greater accident risk and more deviant driving styles are associated with being young and male. Age decreases both the amount of anger felt in traffic and the severity of aggressive reactions in men.

Galovski and Blanchard (2002b) compared aggressive drivers with non-aggressive drivers and found that there were differences in terms of anxiety, hostility and anger, as well as competitiveness in driving and anger in driving (towards slow drivers and traffic obstructions). They also found that aggressive drivers had more moving violations than non-aggressive drivers, as well as having higher levels of assaultiveness, verbal hostility and suspiciousness. Galovski, Blanchard and Freidenberg (2005) also suggest that aggressive drivers have higher current and lifetime prevalence of a range of disorders, including Alcohol and Substance Use Disorder, Attention-Deficit / Hyperactivity Disorder and Intermittent Explosive Disorder. Aggressive drivers also had higher levels of self-reported problems with anger, as well as a greater family history.

Galovski and Blanchard (2002b) have written many articles relating to aggressive driving and psychology. However they have used a small sample in their primary research, and this sample is also used in subsequent papers so their findings should be used with caution.

Research released by Autoglass^[10] showed that half of all motorists surveyed felt driving conditions made them so stressed (31%) or angry (21%) that they vented their frustrations on other users, by tailgating, speeding or cutting up other drivers. The survey revealed the proportion of drivers who admitted doing a range of different anti-social or aggressive driving manoeuvres:

• 72% drive aggressively
• 74% drive too closely to other vehicles
• 90% regularly broke the speed limit to make up time lost to traffic jams
• 71% went through red lights
• 68% cut up other drivers
• 64% rushed out at junctions or roundabouts
• One in twelve have had an accident of some sort as a result of such actions, and a quarter have had a near miss

Mizell (undated) makes the point that:

"...there is no one profile of the so-called 'aggressive driver'... However, as might be expected, the majority of aggressive drivers are relatively young, relatively poorly educated males who have criminal records, histories of violence, and drug or alcohol problems. Many of these individuals have recently suffered an emotional or professional setback... It is not unusual for friends and relatives to describe these individuals as 'odd', 'disenfranchised', or 'a loner'."

Despite this, the author notes that many incidents are perpetrated by 'successful' men and women who have no history of violence, crime, or alcohol and drug abuse. The author therefore concludes that today's aggressive driver could be of any gender, age, religion or ethnic origin, but that they are usually young and male. This 'randomness' is supported by the AAA Foundation^[11].

Therefore, there is also confusion in the literature as to whether people who are generally aggressive are prone to more aggression when in driving, or whether aggression can affect any driver. Such issues are investigated further in the section about the extent to which people who show a lack of respect on the road more likely to exhibit dangerous behaviour on the roads.

The AA research quoted by Joint (1995), a survey of 526 motorists, showed that sixty percent had admitted losing their tempers behind the wheel. The same research subdivided the type of forms of road rage:

• Aggressive tailgating (62%)
• Headlight flashing (59%)
• Obscene gestures (48%)
• Deliberating obstructing other vehicles (21%)
• Verbal abuse (16%)
• Physically assaulted by other motorists (1%)

Whilst the Autoglass and AAA research is useful, caution must be recommended if using the information to guide policy. Both organisations published their research on the internet, and all are pro-motoring organisations so are likely to have a bias towards the driver. However, given the limited information available relating to attitudes to police, parking attendants and other law enforcers, their findings must carry some weight in the absence of other reports. The AA research was originally published in print, though for this project was obtained via the internet. It was conducted to Market Research Society standards, and is a robust and independent study.

There seems to be some level of change over time in terms of the gender distribution of aggressive driver and discourteous driving. This may be a reflect of the situations in which surveys and research are carried out, or it may be a more general reflection of the greater role women have had in society as a whole over the last thirty or forty years. We have seen elsewhere in this report that there have been increasing numbers of women driving. As such, perhaps there is an element of the behaviour of women 'catching up' the behaviour of men. This would seem to be supported by various research summarised by Galovski and Blanchard (2004: 108-109):

"Parry (1968) administered a 77-item questionnaire to over 380 British drivers to ascertain their perceptions of other drivers' behavior with particular attention to aggressive driving behaviors... Parry found aggressive behaviors to be related to road accidents. Specifically, drivers between the ages of 17 and 35 (mostly male) admitted to the most aggressive driving behavior and were the most likely to be in an accident... Turner, Layton, and Simons (1975) selected 12 questions from Parry's (1968) questionnaire and administered them to 26 men and 27 women. Results indicated that 23% of the men and 18% of the women reported feeling easily provoked when driving. In an effort to quantify the extent of more recent aggressive driving, the Automobile Association conducted a 1995 survey of 526 drivers (Joint, 1997). Results indicated that 90% of those surveyed reported having witnessed incidents of driving aggression in the last 12 months. Sixty percent reported personally ''losing their temper'' at the wheel. Fifty-four percent of women endorsed aggressive driving behaviors as compared to 64% of men. Thus, aggressive driving, both historically and currently, appears to be a fairly common occurrence on the roadways."

Research has been carried out into red light running (Porter and Berry 2001). Their research looked into driver perceptions and behaviours regarding red lights. They found that, despite many feeling that red light running was dangerous and problematic, around twenty percent reported this behaviour. Younger respondents were more likely to be violators, and were typically in a hurry, though frustration was not seen as being an important predictor as it had been in other studies looking at speeding, tailgating and the like. Red light runners reported speeding up to beat a traffic light; those who slowed down did so for safety reasons. Drivers perceived and received few consequences for red light running. Less than 6% had received a ticket, and respondents believed that police would catch less than one in five violators. Just over one in ten had been involved in a red light running crash.

Porter and Berry's (2001) research is potentially limited because of their sample, which was over-represented in terms of women and older drivers (though the authors supposed that it was younger male drivers who were more likely to display this behaviour). Their results also relied heavily on a telephone survey, which could have an impact on the results.

Extent of the Problem - Other Factors

The AAA Foundation have released some information about other factors which might have an influence on road rage^[12]:

• 10.5% of the incidents occurred between 6-8AM.
• 15.8% occurred between 2-4PM, and 25.0% occurred between 4-6PM.
  Road rage incidents were more likely to occur at peak times, particularly at peak times in the afternoon.
• 68.3% occurred in sunny weather, and 20.1% occurred on overcast days.
  Inclement weather does not seem to contribute to road rage; it may actually decrease it by keeping motorists more preoccupied with roadway conditions and lowering driver expectations.
• 37.8% of the incidents took place in the summer.
  The indication elsewhere in this document (see the section about the characteristics of the car environment) that heat may have an impact on driver aggression seems to be supported by these results.
  The occurrences of holidays does not seem to influence the frequency of road rage incidents.
• 26.1% of the incidents took place on Friday. 17.4% occurred on Wednesday, followed by Tuesday and Thursday.
  Patterns would therefore seem to suggest that road rage attacks occur most frequently at the end of the working week.
• A third of incidents occurred in moderately congested traffic. 26.4% occurred under free-flowing traffic, and 22.2% under conditions of heavy congestion.
  Some level of congestion therefore seems to play a part in the prevalence of road rage incidents.
• In a quarter of incidents where the information was known, drugs or alcohol were reported to be a factor.
• 23.7% occurred on 'urban freeways'. 21.1% occurred on urban non-freeways.
  Some correlation may therefore exist between the urban environment and road rage.

Dukes et al (2001: 324) make a seemingly unique point (which does not seem to have been developed by further research), in that the use of mobile phones can have an impact on aggressive driving and road rage. The authors note "...the consistent findings that drivers talking on the phone think they have more space in front of their car than the really have, and cell phone users have slower response times." Although this behaviour might be construed as aggressive driving by others, there may in fact be no intentional aggression.

Dukes et al (2001:325) also make the point that, as the diversity of drivers has increased, anger and retaliation may be directed at the "...usual targets of discrimination: women, ethnic minorities, and younger / older drivers." However their own research found against this theory, because the characteristics of the other driver were less likely to produce road rage than aspects such as reckless driving.

Dukes et al (2001) provide a useful summary of research relating to aggressive driving. Their results may be limited however because they used only undergraduate students in their study, so socio-economic factors and age factors need to be taken into account regarding the sample. Additionally, being American research, the results may not be applicable to other countries. However their findings, that age and gender do not seem to relate to anger, are worth reporting.

Pedestrians

Generally, drivers do not seem to become annoyed at pedestrian activity. The AA Foundation^[13] found that drivers take little account of pedestrian activity. The AA Foundation also discovered that drivers may ignore pedestrians because:

• drivers had to focus directly on the road ahead
• drivers were cocooned
• pedestrians posed no threat

However the AA Foundation also surveyed drivers to find out factors influencing risk perception amongst drivers, and found that competing pedestrian activity was of importance. Perceived and actual risk are, of course, different concepts.

Lajunen and Parker (2001) found in their study of the Driving Anger Scale (DAS) that a pedestrian walking slowly across the road caused the least irritation to motorists. (Further commentary on the work relating to the DAS is found later in this report.)

Hauber (1980) found that males, when crossing the street, were almost twice as likely to be shown aggression.

Cyclists

Little academic research was found relating to the feelings of road users towards cyclists or motorcyclists. However, there is a feeling amongst motorists, as seen on a number of websites and forums, that cyclists often do not obey the rules of the road. "...Poor behavior on the part of motorists is often simply a response to misbehavior by cyclists. Can cyclists fairly expect motorists to respect their rights on the roads if they do not attempt to ride predictably, signal, and adhere to traffic laws?"^[14] Equally there is a feeling that, to motorists, cyclists are not equal users of the road, noting the "...common motorist's perception that bicyclists should not receive equal respect on the road."^[15]

Given the lack of academic sources relating to cyclists, some of the best sources are actually the least academic sources, for example forums where people can express views and opinions about a range of subjects. Such forums are a valuable source of information relating to attitudes within the public as a whole. However, it must be remembered that, being internet-based, there are issues relating to the sample of the public who have access to the internet.

High Mileage Road Users

The level to which high mileage can be a factor in aggressive driving is also something discussed by the literature, and again no common agreement is found.

A UNECE report includes the following paragraph:

"Based on accident statistics, young men and high mileages are universally rated by insurers as the most volatile mix behind the wheel. But a study carried out in Britain, the Netherlands and Finland found that intentional aggression or deliberate violation of road rules, rather than a propensity to make mistakes due to inexperience or misjudgement, were a more useful way of judging risk."^[16]

Research by Lajunen and Parker (2001: 253) showed the effect of high mileage on different drivers:

Conversely, Wells-Parker et al (2002) found that low-mileage drivers were less likely to be threatening or angry and also less likely to be verbally aggressive.

Parker and Stradling (2001) discussed the issues relating to passive crash involvement (i.e. when someone else runs into a driver). They found that high mileage drivers are more at risk because of their greater exposure to risk (24% compared to 14%). By lowering their violating manner of driving, high mileage drivers reduce their risk to the same level as low mileage drivers (13%).

Commercial Vehicle Drivers

Drivers of commercial vehicles may create specific issues regarding the issue of aggressive driving and respect on the road. Because they are driving as part of their work, their exposure to behaviours on the road is greater.

A US telephone survey of 1000 adult licensed drivers was conducted by Global Strategy Group between March 17 and March 28, 2000. Simultaneous telephone surveys were also conducted with approximately 100 adult licensed drivers in each of five cities Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland, Indianapolis, and Minneapolis. A summary of the key findings from the national and city-specific surveys was then developed which showed:

• Young drivers are more aggressive in all driving behaviours than older drivers; senior drivers are the least aggressive
• Men are more aggressive than women when they drive sports cars and light trucks (S-10, Pick-up, Ram, Ranger, F-150, Silverado, Dakota, etc.)
• Women are more aggressive than men when they drive SUVs and luxury cars
• For economy and family cars, it depends on the specific behaviour.

On the other hand, the aforementioned study shows a gender difference in the way that males and females drive vans, with the female group demonstrating lower levels of aggression than their male counterparts. What is also interesting is that the data seems to indicate similarities in aggression ratings between genders when driving 'trucks'. This may be due to the high level of professional pride felt by this subset of the American driving population. That said, this is different for behaviours such as swearing which also demonstrate a low level of respect for others on the road. Those driving economy vehicles and vans considered themselves to swear less frequently than luxury, family, truck and utility drivers. Sports car drivers had the highest incidents of swearing within the group. American women were found to swear more often behind the wheel than males.

Due to their high exposure driving, and to the size of the vehicle driven, commercial drivers may have particular issues. These problems are an outcome not only of driver behaviour and decision making, but also of the socio-economic environment in which they work. These include economic accountability factors such as operating expenses, profitability, fleet size, and type of commodity being delivered. Economic factors put psychological pressure on commercial drivers and influence their risk taking behaviour and driving orientation or philosophy.

Research by Hauber (1980) found that commercial vehicle drivers were more likely to drive aggressively when observed at a pedestrian crossing than drivers of other vehicles.

Driving psychology attempts to understand the conflict experienced by commercial drivers as they respond to schedules set by the business by trying to cut corners in maintenance, by disobeying traffic laws, and by taking illicit drugs to help them drive longer shifts (James and Nahl, 2000). According to their book, commercial drivers come to rely on their stamina, operating skills, and quick reflexes in order to compensate for their harsh job demands. The drivers' frustrations, tensions, and rationalizations interact with their skills, habits, beliefs, and perspectives to fashion an overall driving philosophy, orientation, or style that ultimately create the driver's accident record and productivity level.

Research in America (Gabler and Hollowell 1998) found that collisions between cars and LTVs (light trucks and vans) account for over half of all fatalities in light vehicle-to-vehicle crashes. Around 60% of fatalities in light vehicle side impacts occur when the striking vehicle is an LTV. It is suggested that in America at least, van drivers are more aggressive and the design of the vehicles (mass, stiffness, geometry) cause 'severe crash incompatibilities'.

Gabler and Hollowell (1998) is a relatively technical paper, based on American case studies and research. As such its applicability to British conditions might be limited, particularly given that there are likely to be differences in the commercial vehicle make-up in the two countries. Despite this its findings are worth reporting given the lack of information relating to commercial vehicles and aggressive driving.

---

7: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3583863.stm.
8: Quoted in news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3583863.stm.
9: The authors reference this as www.theaa.co.uk/theaa/u40.htm. This web address appears to belong to the UK Automobile Association, rather than the American one. When an attempt to access it for this project was made, it was found to be unavailable.
10: www.autoglass.co.uk.
11: www.aaafoundation.org/resources/index.cfm?button=roadrage.
12: www.aaafoundation.org/resources/index.cfm?button=roadrage.
13: www.iam.org.uk/motoringtrust/reports/aafoundation/pedestrianactivityandaccidentrisk.htm.
14: www.bicyclinginfo.org/education/motorists.cfm.
15: www.newsreview.com/reno/Content?oid=oid%3A22398.
16: www.unece.org/trans/radiation/Press_releases/UNECEWeekly0404.pdf.

[ Previous ] [ Contents ] [ Next ]