"Respect on the Road": Mott MacDonald Literature Review

Executive summary
Critical assessment of key sources
Introduction
Methodology
Definitions
What do people understand respect on the road to be?
How does behaviour differ between road users e.g. car users, van drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrians, and why?
What are peoples' attitudes to the police, parking attendants and other law enforcers on the road?
What characteristics of the car environment cause a person's respect for others to diminish?
How do people justify their behaviour on the road?
To what extent are the people who show a lack of respect on the road more likely to exhibit dangerous behaviour on the roads?
What would make people improve their behaviour on the road and show more respect for others?
Recommendations
References

This document has also been made available in Adobe Acrobat format for downloading. The Adobe® Acrobat Reader® can be freely downloaded. Viewers with visual difficulties may find it useful to investigate services provided to improve the accessibility of Acrobat documents - http://access.adobe.com Mott MacDonald Literature Review (Adobe Acrobat - 1,612kb)

Executive Summary

Definitions

• There are issues surrounding definition. There is a need to define the concept of respect on the road more carefully, and define the extent of the issue more precisely. Road rage, aggressive driving and disrespectful driving seem to be used interchangeably.

• There is no commonly agreed definition of road rage (Marshall and Thomas 2000, Forward 2004). Definitions have been attempted using lists of associated behaviours (e.g. Elliott 1999); however these behaviours are rarely ranked in importance (an attempt was made by Galovski and Blanchard 2002a), nor are the behaviours themselves carefully defined (Tasca, undated).

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.

Forward (2004), however, 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. Readers must be mindful that 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.

Galovski and Blanchard (2002a) 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.

Tasca (undated) summarises available literature regarding aggressive driving. It is useful and useable, and attempts to come up with a working definition of aggressive driving. It focuses solely on drivers, thereby highlighting the extent to which there is a potential lack of literature regarding other users.

• There is a need to define the groups which are more likely to be involved in disrespectful behaviour (though such behaviour may be endemic throughout the entire driving population).

• Distinction between aggressive driving and aggressive drivers (Shinar 1998). It is difficult to define the intention of the driver (Maxwell et al 2005, Wells-Parker et al 2002). Aggressive driving might not be intentional; it may just be due to bad driving. There are three driving behaviours - lapses, errors and violations (Parker and Stradling 2001).

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.

• There is an issue to which the definition of road rage and associated behaviours (aggressive driving, disrespectful driving) is over-represented by both the media and academia. As there is a lack of consistent definition, both in terms of the meaning and the scale of the issue, there is a danger that scarce resources might be spent on a minor problem, the impact of which is over-represented. At the very least, a lack of definition might mean that scarce resources are spent on the wrong elements of the problem^[1].

• Definitional ambiguity needs to be avoided with 'respect on the road' if the issue is to be addressed and tackled, and funding is to be allocated where it is needed most; Dula and Geller (2003: 559) suggest that "...definitional ambiguity in the literature impedes the accumulation of accurate and precise information, and prevents researchers from communicating clearly about findings and implications for future research."

Dula and Geller (2003) attempted to formulate a working definition for the term aggressive driving. In doing so they provided a useful summary of the existing definitions and ways in which the term is used. Given that confusion remains their definition has not been widely adopted. Their statement that horn-honking as a measure of aggression could be flawed does call into question the validity of the other studies listed above (Doob and Gross, 1968; Deaux, 1971; Chase and Mills, 1973; Hankes-Drielsma, 1974; Turner et al, 1975; Hankes-Drielsma, 1974; Ellison et al, 1995). However these studies should not be dismissed as they may actually reflect expressions of actual aggression.

• The extent to which individuals may become victims or perpetrators of aggression or disrespectful behaviour on the road is almost certainly linked to the amount of time we spend driving. Given that the amount of time and the annual distance we travel is increasing, it is likely we are exposing ourselves to greater danger.

What do people understand respect on the road to be?

• The term 'respect on the road' does not seem to have currency yet in academic papers.

• The term does seem to have currency in society in general, and is often loaded with meaning (being associated with big or powerful cars, and concepts of status and superiority). Respect is something people feel they should received as a matter of course when using roads.

• As noted above, the term needs to be carefully defined in order to direct future research and also direct available funding.

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.

Devon County Council has recently been awarded 'beacon status', due to its road safety work. As a beacon council it is worth exploring what they understand about respect on the road, however Despite being awarded beacon status for its road safety work, Devon County Council, the term 'respect on the road' is used loosely and with little in the way of definition.

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

• Difficulty in defining those who are victims and those who are perpetrators.

• Difficulty in finding meaningful data relating to the issue, though this may again be due to a lack of definition regarding road rage and aggressive driving. Where data is available it is often based on small-scale academic surveys or field studies, which tend to have methodological limitations.

• Even where 'empirical' data is available (e.g. Marshall and Thomas 2000), it is based on limited sources (for example news reports which tend to concentrate on 'newsworthy' stories and the higher level aggressive driving or road rage incidents).

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 numbers of news reports available mean that any conclusions drawn from the data are likely to be of limited applicability to other research.

• There is some confusion in the literature as to the typology of aggressive drivers / road rage perpetrators, though again this is likely to be due to the definitions used (Marshall and Thomas 2000). Forward (2004) notes that young males are noted for their propensity towards aggression (a 'macho personality'). Lajunen and Parker (2001) typify aggressive drivers as being young. Forward (2004) also states that in terms of mild aggression (horn honking, fist shaking) there is little difference between the genders, an argument supported by Deffenbacher et al (2003).

• To some extent, any drivers could be targeted and victimised, and anyone could be an aggressive driver (Mizell, undated).

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.

• There is limited information regarding attitudes towards pedestrians. Drivers generally do not become annoyed at pedestrian activity (Lajunen and Parker 2001), though can perceive them as a risk (AA Foundation).

• There is limited information regarding attitudes towards cyclists. However, motorists often feel cyclists should be 'better behaved' whilst cyclists think motorists do not feel they are equal users of the road.

• There is limited information regarding attitudes towards commercial vehicles. Hauber (1980) found that commercial drivers were more likely to drive aggressively. Gabler and Hollowell (1998) found that collisions between cars and vans account for over half of all fatalities in light vehicle-to-vehicle crashes, and than van drivers are more aggressive.

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.

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.

What are peoples' attitudes to the police, parking attendants and other law enforcers on the road?

• In studies that have measured the attitudes towards police, there has been little reaction towards them (Forward 2004, Lajunen et al 1998). However Dukes et al (2001) and Deffenbacher et al (1994) found that police presence made male drivers most angry. Yagil (1998b) found that younger drivers perceived police drivers more negatively than older drivers.

• The literature relating to attitudes towards police, parking attendants and other law enforcers additionally looks at the attitudes towards road safety measures. Generally people are supportive of measures to promote safety, though there is evidence to suggest the opposite (in that drivers often exhibit behaviours to counter road safety measures) (Autoglass research, AA Foundation).

Yagil (1998b) may well have some relevance, but the limitations on his study are clear. Self completion questionnaires may not actually produce a reflection of reality in the results. The fact that the study was limited to male army employees may also impact the results; it is entirely possible that males in the army are more aggressive the males in society in general.

Whilst the Autoglass and AAA research is useful, both are organisations who represent motoring interests and may be favourable towards the viewpoint of the driver. However, given the limited information available relating to attitudes to police, parking attendants and other law enforcers, their findings are still of value in that context.

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.

What characteristics of the car environment cause a person's respect for others to diminish?

• Freedom - whilst a car allows people certain freedom, their progress is impeded by regulations, congestion and other drivers (Galovski and Blanchard 2004).

• Territory - a car can be seen as an extension of personal space, and the space around a vehicle as their territory (James and Nahl 2002).

• Status symbol - a car is a statement of self (Connell and Joint 1996), and this is likely to play a part in the way people behave on the roads.

Connell and Joint (1996) contains a useful literature review relating to contributing factors to aggression. It is quite a wide-ranging text, looking at both psychological elements through to environmental influences.

• Anonymity - the car allows a driver to be relatively anonymous (James and Nahl 2002, Forward 2004). Other drivers are therefore anonymous, and so aggression is often aimed at the car rather than another person.

• External factors - the literature summarises a whole range of external factors (or 'fields' in the terminology of Connell and Joint 1996). Such factors include congestion, limitations on progress, having to take interest in the behaviours of others, aggressive manoeuvres, noise, temperature, overcrowding, stress.

• Driver personality - the personality of the driver is seen as being of importance, though the extent to which a driver's personality is expressed in their driving is contested. Forward (2004) and Lajunen and Parker (2001) do not support the idea of a Jekyll and Hyde syndrome in driving. Research suggests aggression is linked to the car as an extension of the driver's personality and values (Galovski and Blanchard 2004), territory (Joint 1995), and even car sharing (Schaeffer et al 1988, Porter and Berry 2001). Joint also further links these concepts to issues such as congestion, unclear road priorities, and the failures of other drivers to adhere to the rules of the road. Connell and Joint (1996) state there has been a lack of well-reasoned explanations of rage and only simplistic explanations of road rage.

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.

• Reflecting society - aggression whilst driving might well reflect greater aggression in society in general (Connell and Joint 1996).

How do people justify their behaviour on the road?

• The literature points towards a number of explanations:
• Learnt behaviour (in childhood) (Bandura 1986)
• Learnt behaviour (via the media) (Tasca undated)
• Feelings of superiority (e.g. they won't be involved in an accident, they won't be captured by police etc.) (Parker and Stradling 2001)
• Feelings of bravado (e.g. they find violating enjoyable, exhilarating etc.) (Parker and Stradling 2001)
• People they respect are unlikely to disapprove
• Modern cars want to go faster (Parker and Stradling 2001)
• It's difficult to resist the temptation and it's difficult to keep to the speed limit (Parker and Stradling 2001)
• Over-estimation of driving skills (BBC)
• There are links to those aspects of the car environment which cause respect to diminish (e.g. territory, anonymity)
• The 'frustration-aggression hypothesis' (Dollard et al 1939) might be of relevance, though this is contested by Lajunen and Parker 2001).

Dollard et al (1939) is a classic text and well respected, though its applicability to driver aggression has been contested (e.g. Lajunen and Parker 2001). As such, though it might be useful in a wider context, in driver-specific contexts its usefulness could be limited. Despite this it still provides a useful one possible theory explaining aggression.

Lajunen and Parker (2001) use a relatively small sample of British drivers to further develop the Driver Anger Scale. Being a small sample and being based on self-reported data its validity could be questioned, but because the results report British attitudes it should be representative of the wider society. It is useful in that it applies the Driver Anger Scale to British conditions, and thereby helps to develop the literature regarding aggression, anger and behaviour.

To what extent are the people who show a lack of respect on the road more likely to exhibit dangerous behaviour on the roads?

• Some literature points towards a link between aggression and anger.

• The Trigger Theory (Searle 1969) may be an explanation - it absolves a driver from some or all of the responsibility for aggression. It gives people the excuse to retaliate when they feel wronged by another individual. It is common for people exhibiting road rage to show no remorse for their behaviour, seeing what they did as justified and deserved. This theory is developed by Shinar (1998) and Maxwell et al (2005), who all link aggression to anger.

Shinar (1998) contains a useful literature review as well as primary research. Based in Israel, there is an issue regarding the extent to which the findings are applicable elsewhere. The studies contained are limited in scope, and also try to replicate real life situations in pseudo-laboratory situations. The validity of the findings is therefore called into question.

• Other authors link other factors to anger, including impeded travel and violations of social norms (Lajunen and Parker 2001).

• Escalation of behaviour might also play a part, either immediately or some time after the initial provocation.

• The Driver Anger Scale (Deffenbacher et al 1994) and Propensity for Angry Driving Scale (DePasquale et al 2001) were produced. The first helps to show the propensity to experience anger whilst driving, while the latter shows the propensity to experience anger towards others whilst driving.

Deffenbacher et al (2003) is a useful and objective study. They use a sample of 121 psychology students, which potentially limits the validity of the results. The research relied on a sample of undergraduate students. Certainly, this means that the demographic profile of the sample is likely to be younger, and this may have an impact on the reported results. However the study is still a useful discussion about anger whilst driving.

What would make people improve their behaviour on the road and show more respect for others?

Only general comments can be made on the usefulness and usability of schemes to tackle the behaviour of drivers. Each scheme will undoubtedly have merits. However, the extent to which different schemes can be transferred to different locations and still be successful can be called into question. It is likely that only certain aspects of each scheme will have an impact in other places. Additionally, different sectors of society are likely to react differently to a range of schemes addressed to tackle their behaviour. The extent to which schemes will be successful is also likely to depend on the willingness of people to have their behaviour changed or challenged.

• Four different ways in which the behaviour of people could be improved. These are behavioural, ergonomic and self-help.

1. Behavioural
• Educating about issues relating to health (Leon James)
• "safety bingo" to award drivers who stay out of crashes (Friedland)
• educational - behavioural, for new drivers and offenders (AAA Foundation)
• Intervene in anger cycle earlier (Connell and Joint 1996)
• Cooling off (Connell and Joint 1996)
• Control external factors (noise, heat) (Connell and Joint 1996)
• Understand behaviours of others (Connell and Joint 1996)
2. Enforcement
• Clearer guidelines are required for the treatment of offenders (Connell and Joint 1996)
• A range of enforcement methodologies have been used in the US (including increased enforcement, increased penalties, systems to report offenders, hi-tech solutions)
3. Ergonomic
• Road layout
• Signals
• Reduce congestion
• Car environment
'
• Shared' road space (e.g. concern over space shared with pedestrians and other road users)
4. Self Help
• Internet-based 'coping strategies'

Whilst ergonomic approaches are undoubtedly useful, the extent to which they can be put into place depends on a number of factors. Specifically, at least in terms of road layout, there will always be a mismatch between those who support car use and those who support other sustainable transport measures. Any government of the day, even if they want to tackle issues of road layout, will have to pay attention to the requirements of the environmental or sustainable transport lobbyists. In terms of changes to car ergonomics, there would have to be a will to push new designs forward amongst the manufacturers. If this were not to occur, then drivers may have to be willing to pay more for certain features which might help to engender safer driver.

Recommendations

A fuller section of recommendations is available at the end of the main document.

• Develop a fuller definition of the term 'respect on the road', preferably involving key groups (such as drivers and driver organisations, representatives of commercial drivers, pedestrians etc) and perhaps establishing focus groups with these parties.
• This will help the academic community develop a body of knowledge on the subject
• Interventions will be better targeted if the area for intervention is better defined
• The limited funds which are available will be better spent

• Further research to see if there are people more likely to drive aggressively, and whether this differs from those drivers who may drive disrespectfully.

• Develop partnerships (e.g. with the police, insurers, and those carrying out longitudinal surveys such as the British Crime Survey) to begin to collect meaningful information.

• Carry out further research into those methodologies which reduce aggressive driving might be transferable to disrespectful driving and reduce such behaviour
• Find out whether policies from other countries are transferable
• Establish which approaches will work with different sectors of the driving community
• If making changes to road layout be aware that there may be groups who are against such changes

• Further research may be required to develop the intelligence base regarding law enforcers, pedestrians and other (non private car) road users, given the lack of evidence discovered so far.

• Use this research to implement a programme to reduce disrespectful driving.

• Establish a methodology to measure whether the programme to reduce disrespectful driving is working.

---

1: www.drivers.com/article/166/.

[ Previous ] [ Contents ] [ Next ]