Aggressive Driving

Executive Summary

Introduction

“Aggressive driving” is operating a motor vehicle in a selfish, pushy, or impatient manner, often unsafely, that directly affects other drivers. In many cases, the behavior results from interaction between the driver and the driving environment. For this reason, resolving the problem lies not only with enforcement but also with education and engineering. This guide encourages a multidisciplinary approach that seeks solutions to the causes of aggressive driving and not just the addressing of its symptoms.

To be successful, programs aimed at reducing aggressive driving should

1. Concentrate on enforcing all traffic laws, regardless of whether the violator’s actions affect other road users or have been linked to crashes at the enforcement location.
2. Address traffic-operations factors that affect driving and that apparently contribute to aggressive driving (e.g., badly coordinated traffic signals).
3. Have in place a method for evaluating any reduced aggressive driving and related crashes.

Effective programs

1. Require a champion, a person within an organization who can both provide leadership and obtain support from others.
2. Need to involve many disciplines representing interests outside the primarily involved organization.
3. Need to link aggressive driving to crashes and to measure outcomes in terms of reductions in crashes or correlative measures.

Statement of the Problem

While estimates of the problem vary, perceptions among both law enforcement and drivers are that aggressive driving is becoming more prevalent. According to a National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) survey about aggressive driving attitudes and behaviors, more than 60 percent of drivers see unsafe driving by others, including speeding, as a major personal threat to themselves and their families. More than half admitted to driving aggressively on occasion. The Surface Transportation Policy Project estimated that aggressive actions contributed to 56 percent of all fatal crashes. However, without a clear definition of aggressive driving, these broad assertions are difficult to support.

Traffic safety experts suggest that any or all of the following elements have to be in place for an incident to be considered aggressive driving:

• Driving or attempting to drive at a speed different than the prevailing speed and maneuvering so that others are directly affected.
• Directing verbal or nonverbal expressions of anger toward other drivers designed to encourage retaliation on the part of other drivers.
• Deliberately ignoring traffic controls, especially by increasing speed or failing to slow for the controls.
• Driving in a way that attempts to gain an advantage over other drivers (e.g., appearing to be taking an unfair advantage or breaking notions of equity such as violating ramp meters and driving on the shoulder).

One important contributor to aggressive driving is frustration, which has been found to lead to aggression in other situations. The frustration-aggression approach suggested by researchers such as David Shinar of Ben Gurion University in Israel has the advantage of allowing for a conceptual relationship between the driving situation and the expression of anger by the individual driver. The basic assumption here is that drivers, when exposed to congestion and other frustrating situations, will experience increasing levels of aggression. This concept is important because addressing driver behavior may not be effective unless external frustration-causing elements are also addressed.

Aggressive driving is a “contextual” violation. The two major components of the context are the driver’s psychological state (background and current condition) and the driver’s traveling environment. Therefore, the application of aggressive driving programs must address the context in which the behavior is exhibited.

Programs and Strategies

Most programs referenced to date appear in NHTSA’s Aggressive Driving Enforcement Strategies for Implementing Best Practices (June 2000).¹ These cited efforts generally have addressed aggressive driving through specific traffic-enforcement programs. A few agencies have reported success measured by a reduction of crashes, but their programs usually applied intensive traffic law enforcement aimed at all violations. Pennsylvania and Milwaukee, Wisconsin, have reported favorable results with programs aimed specifically at well-defined acts of aggressive driving.

No effort has addressed the treatment of engineering elements as a means of mitigating aggressive driving, even though traffic safety professionals recognize that the driving environment plays a role in driver behavior. Moreover, because there is an apparent link between aggression and frustration—and the driving environment often is a frustrating one—there remains a need to identify and correct, where possible, those elements that can lead to frustration (e.g., uncoordinated traffic signals and lack of accurate information regarding causes of traffic delays).

This guide suggests several strategies for addressing the problems. These strategies combine the elements of enforcement, education, and engineering. The strategies are suggested recognizing that, with few exceptions, programs that depend upon only one of these elements are not likely to be successful. The table below identifies the strategies, organized according to their underlying objectives.

EXHIBIT I-1
Objectives and Strategies for Addressing Aggressive Driving

Objectives	Strategies
4.1 A—Deter aggressive driving in specific populations, including those with a history of such behavior, and at specific locations	4.1 A1—Target enforcement
	4.1 A2—Conduct educational and public information campaigns
	4.1 A3—Educate and impose sanctions against repeat offenders
4.1 B—Improve the driving environment to eliminate or minimize the external "triggers" of aggressive driving	4.1 B1—Change or mitigate the effects of identified elements in the environment
	4.1 B2—Reduce nonrecurring delays and provide better information about these delays

Target enforcement. This strategy has been the one most commonly employed in the field so far. However, many of the programs either concentrate on speeding or respond to a state law that determines that aggressive driving is the violation of multiple traffic laws, regardless of whether the driving affects others.

Conduct educational and public information campaigns. Public information and education (PI&E) need to be a part of targeted enforcement. The programs should employ multimedia, multiaudience approaches.

Educate and impose sanctions against repeat offenders. The National Safety Council has developed an Attitudinal Defensive Driver Education course that is intended to reach the habitual traffic violator. The habitually aggressive driver also may benefit from this approach. However, this program has not been evaluated for effectiveness either generally or specifically for aggressive drivers.

Change or mitigate the impact of identified elements in the environment that can trigger aggressive driving. While there is agreement that this strategy is an integral part of addressing aggressive driving, no program has been found that includes this element. What is required is a broadening of the approach to correcting aggressive driving, one that recognizes that a team of traffic safety experts needs to address all facets of driving.

Reduce nonrecurring delays and provide better information about these delays. Numerous examples of providing traffic information exist throughout the country. What is needed is a better assessment of what methods work. An integral part of providing information is keeping traffic moving. The Federal Highway Administration has been actively involved with their programs to improve incident management and provide for better traffic control.

¹ http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/enforce/aggressdrivers/aggenforce/index.html