Aggressive Driving: Definitions, Laws and Prevalence

Prepared for

Division of State Patrol

Prepared by

CTC & Associates LLC

WisDOT Research & Library Unit

May 15, 2009

Transportation Synthesis Reports are brief summaries of currently available information on topics of interest to

WisDOT staff throughout the department. Online and print sources for TSRs include NCHRP and other TRB

programs, AASHTO, the research and practices of other transportation agencies, and related academic and

industry research. Internet hyperlinks in TSRs are active at the time of publication, but changes on the host server

Request for Report

Aggressive driving has been a concern in the United States since at least the 1990s. In recent years, Wisconsin

legislators have attempted to enact penalty enhancers to punish aggressive driving, defined as a series of specific

traffic offenses occurring in a chain of events that collectively define a single act of “aggressive driving,” but the

legislation has failed to pass.

WisDOT’s Division of State Patrol requested a synthesis report about aggressive driving laws, focusing on the

following questions:

• Which states have defined “aggressive driving” as a stand-alone traffic offense or as a penalty enhancement

for a series of traffic offenses?

• Have state aggressive driving laws been sufficiently well-defined for the law enforcement community, for

prosecutors, and for the courts?

• What does the research literature say about the reality and perception of aggressive driving—is it getting

worse, or more prevalent?

Summary

This synthesis report is divided into three sections:

• Legal Definitions of Aggressive Driving and Their Enforceability, which is divided into subsections on

comparisons of state aggressive driving laws, recent legislation, and the effectiveness of these laws.

• General Resources on Aggressive Driving, including major studies that address both the prevalence and

definition of aggressive driving, including its distinction from road rage.

• Are Road Rage and Aggressive Driving Overhyped?, which includes studies addressing the media

dramatization of road rage, as well as studies confirming the prevalence of aggressive driving as distinct

from road rage.

A summary of general conclusions from these sections follows.

Laws and Definitions

Fourteen states have passed laws addressing aggressive driving. Most states define aggressive driving as involving

the combination of at least two or three specified driving offenses, sometimes with the stipulation that these

actions be hazardous to others (Arizona, Nevada, Virginia) or involve the intent to harm or harass or a disregard

for safety (Georgia, North Carolina, Utah, Virginia). These laws are summarized below in a chart created by the

Governors Highway Safety Association.

Some researchers believe that laws specifying intent or disregard are less precise than laws focusing on driving

behaviors or offenses, because they require more subjective judgment by law enforcement officers (see especially

the chart by James and Nahl on page 5 of this TSR). This concern is supported by a survey (Flango and Keith, 2004;

see page 8 of this TSR) that suggests that aggressive driving laws are rarely enforced, largely because they are

difficult to distinguish from reckless driving statutes, and because reckless driving is easier to prove and often incurs

more severe penalties. This study recommends removing intent as an element of aggressive driving legislation.

In line with these recommendations to eliminate intent, a 1999 symposium sponsored by NHTSA, “Aggressive

Driving and the Law,” drew the conclusion that the definition of aggressive driving should at its core involve

“multiple violations occurring together or in rapid succession.” However, this symposium also led to a model that

includes elements of intent, including “wanton disregard for safety.”

The definitions of aggressive driving most commonly cited in the literature are as follows:

• NCHRP: “Operating a motor vehicle in a selfish, pushy, or impatient manner, often unsafely, that directly

affects other drivers”

• NHTSA: “Driving actions that markedly exceed the norms of safe driving behavior and that directly affect

other road users by placing them in unnecessary danger” or (from a law enforcement perspective) “When

individuals commit a combination of moving traffic offenses so as to endanger other persons or property”

• AAA: “Any unsafe driving behavior that is performed deliberately and with ill intention or disregard for

safety”

• Tasca (2000; see page 11 of this TSR): Behavior that is “deliberate, likely to increase the risk of collision

and is motivated by impatience, annoyance, hostility, and/or an attempt to save time,” where behaviors

include such actions as tailgating, weaving, failure to yield and other behaviors considered to be aggressive

by surveyed Canadian residents.

Most researchers make a firm distinction between aggressive driving and road rage, the latter being a form of assault

with intent to harm, and the former being a disregard for safety resulting from impatience or irritation.

Prevalence

Studies seem to confirm that aggressive driving is an increasingly common problem. The studies below cite surveys

and studies performed by the following agencies:

• NHTSA (1998): 60 percent of drivers surveyed believe that unsafe driving by others is a major personal

threat to them and their families, and 33 percent felt that driving was more dangerous than in the year

preceding the survey.

• AAA: 56 percent of fatal crashes from 2003 through 2007 involved one or more driver actions typically

associated with aggressive driving, and incidents of aggressive driving have increased by 7 percent every

year since 1990.

• Steel Alliance-Canada Safety Council (2000): 73 percent of Ontario respondents believe aggressive driving

is increasing, while only 22 percent believe the amount of aggressive driving is unchanged.

• Institute for Traffic Safety Management and Research (1998): Most of those surveyed think aggressive

driving is a problem, and 29 percent say they see it every day.

• Journal of Safety Research (2008): A “considerable percentage” of 1,201 Canadian drivers surveyed

admitted to engaging in aggressive driving.

• Delaware: Estimated that 53 percent of its fatal motor crashes in 2003 were caused by aggressive driving.

Are Aggressive Driving and Road Rage Overhyped?

As one study points out, gauging the prevalence of aggressive driving in the United States is difficult, as no

systematic observational studies of actual aggressive driving behavior on highways have been conducted. Most

studies involve driver surveys that compile self-reported behaviors or perceptions; others employ contrived

situations designed to provoke aggressive driving. A 1996 study by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety

2

identified general trends in aggressive driving based on a review of articles in 30 newspapers and records from 16

police departments, but limited conclusions can be drawn based on that methodology.

While there seems to be data indicating that aggressive driving is a genuine problem and is on the rise, there is a

significant amount of skepticism in the literature about “road rage.” Several articles claim that road rage is

overhyped by the media, only rarely leads to injury, and is more a matter of criminal behavior than an issue having

to do with driving per se.

However, skepticism about media overhyping of road rage does not seem to extend to aggressive driving in general,

insofar as it is a distinct behavior. NHTSA hypothesizes that in fact aggressive driving is the predictable outcome of

increasing highway congestion and similar environmental factors, rather than—as some authors feel it is depicted in

the media—the dramatic effect of a cultural transformation, and something to be conflated with road rage.

Legal Definitions of Aggressive Driving and Their Enforceability

This section provides two tables comparing states’ definitions of aggressive driving, as well as a link to a database

of traffic safety legislation. This section also highlights analyses of the effectiveness of aggressive driving laws.

Comparisons of State Aggressive Driving Laws

Aggressive Driving Laws, Governors Highway Safety Association, October 2008

http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/aggressivedriving_laws.html

This Web site provides a chart comparing state aggressive driving laws, excerpted below. To date, 14 states have

addressed aggressive driving in their legislatures:

•

11 states have passed aggressive driving laws

•

2 states (California and Utah) have amended existing reckless driving laws to include aggressive driving.

•

1 state (Pennsylvania) has passed a resolution against aggressive driving.

State

Aggressive Driver Actions

Comments

Arizona

Speeding and least two of the following: failure to obey

traffic control device, passing on the right out of regular

lanes of traffic, unsafe lane change, following too closely,

failure to yield right of way; and is an immediate hazard to

another person or vehicle.

California

Causing certain bodily injuries to people other than driver.

Amended reckless driving law to

Specifically cites drivers engaged in speed contests.

include aggressive driver actions.

Delaware

At least three of the following: failure to obey traffic

control device, passing on the right, driving outside the

lanes of traffic, following too closely, failure to yield right

of way, failure to signal, failure to stop or yield at signs,

passing a stopped school bus, speeding.

Florida

At least two of the following: speeding, unsafe or improper

Statute does not permit

lane change, following too closely, failure to yield right of

enforcement

way, improper passing, failure to obey traffic control

devices.

Georgia

Intent to annoy, harass, molest, intimidate, injure or

obstruct another person, while doing one or more of the

following: overtaking and passing another vehicle;

3

violating traffic lane markings; following too closely;

violating signal, lane change, slowing or stopping laws;

impeding traffic flows; reckless driving.

Indiana

At least three of the following: following too closely,

unsafe operation, passing on the right off of roadway,

unsafe stopping or slowing, unnecessary sounding of the

horn, failure to yield, failure to obey traffic control device,

speeding, repeatedly flashing headlights.

Maryland

At least three of the following: failure to obey traffic

control device, overtaking and passing, passing on right,

driving on laned roadways, following too closely, failure to

yield right of way or speeding.

Nevada

Within one mile, commits all of the following: 1) speeding;

In 2007, Nevada increased

2) at least two of the following: failure to obey traffic

penalties for subsequent offenses.

control device, passing on the right off of paved roadway,

following too closely, lane violation, failure to yield right

of way; and 3) creating an immediate hazard for another

vehicle or person.

New Jersey

New Jersey enforces against

aggressive driving under title 39,

through existing laws. The

offense may be adjudicated under

39:4-97 (Aggressive Driving),

39:4-97 (Careless Driving), 39-4-

97.2 (Operating a vehicle in an

Unsafe Manner) or any other

statute at the discretion of the

officer.

North

Speeding and driving carelessly and heedlessly in willful

Carolina

or wanton disregard of the rights or safety of others while

committing at least two of the following violations:

running a red light or stop sign, illegal passing, failing to

yield right of way, following too closely.

Pennsylvania

Passed resolution to encourage

drivers to drive courteously and

defensively, not aggressively. The

House also resolved to support

measures that would promote safe

driving practices.

Rhode

Speeding and at least two of the following: failure to obey

Island

traffic control device, overtaking on the right, driving

outside the lanes of traffic, following too closely, failure to

yield right of way, entering roadway unsafely, failure to

use turn signals, failure to stop or yield at signs, use of

emergency lane for travel.

4

Utah

Reckless driving defined as willful and wanton disregard

Amended reckless driving law to

for safety of persons or property or three or more moving

include aggressive driver actions.

violations in a single continuous period of driving.

Virginia

Is a hazard to others with the intent to harass, intimidate,

injure or obstruct another person while committing at least

one of the following: failure to drive on the right side of

highway, driving outside of marked lanes, following too

closely, failure to yield or stop before entering roadway,

failure to obey traffic control device, passing when

overtaking a vehicle, passing on right, failure to yield right

of way, speeding, stopping on a highway.

Using Behavioral Language for Aggressive Driving Laws, Leon James and Diane Nahl, University of Hawaii

The following chart is taken from DrDriving.org, a site created by Dr. Leon James and Dr. Diane Nahl, professors at

the University of Hawaii and authors of Road Rage and Aggressive Driving: Steering Clear of Highway Warfare.

The text below is excerpted from their Web site:

More states are passing Aggressive Driving legislation. Some of the language used to define the offense calls

for subjective assessment by the officer of the intent of the driver and the style of the driving. This kind of

language is rated “vague” because it allows errors of judgment due to field situations and the officer’s

attitudes. Other language is strictly objective, calling for visually observing the occurrence of some behavior

and the number of times it occurs. This kind of language is rated “specific” because it is not influenced by the

officer’s attitudes and depends only on honesty and professional accuracy. A review of the aggressive driving

bills makes it evident that a mixture of vague and specific language is used by most states. Here is a

representative sample. Legislators and law enforcement officials can use this table to avoid using vague

language in their future bills or to amend existing ones.

Language

State Laws

Rating

committing any two or more acts of aggressive driving

Washington

specific

within five consecutive miles

Washington

failing to obey traffic control devices

specific

Washington

passing improperly

vague

Washington

stopping on the roadway

specific

operating a vehicle in a threatening or intimidating

Virginia

manner with the intent to cause others to lose control or

vague

be forced off the highway

operating a vehicle with a reckless disregard for the

Virginia

rights of others or in a manner that endangers any

vague

property or person

Virginia

driving too fast for conditions

vague

operating a vehicle in such a manner as to place another

New York

vague

in reasonable fear of physical injury or death

driving with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another

New York

vague

person in a manner contrary to law

New York

changing lanes or speed in a manner that serves no

vague

5

legitimate purpose and creates a substantial risk of injury

or death to another

New York

intentionally causing a collision

vague

driving in a threatening or intimidating manner

Nebraska

vague

following too closely

Nebraska

honking the horn repeatedly

specific

Nebraska

pointing a firearm or weapon while driving

specific

drives a motor vehicle in a deliberately discourteous,

intolerant, and impatient manner that evidences a pattern

Maryland

of dangerous conduct contributing to the likelihood of a

vague

collision or necessitating evasive action by another driver

of a motor vehicle to avoid a collision

is convicted of four or more violations occurring at the

Maryland

same time or three violations with one of the offenses

specific

being exceeding the speed limit by at least 30 mph.

creates the offense of road rage for any person who

Illinois

intentionally drives a vehicle, with malice, in such a

vague

manner as to endanger the safety or property of another

when the violation results in great bodily harm or

Illinois

specific

disfigurement to another and is a class 4 felony

operates a vehicle carelessly or heedlessly in disregard

for the rights of others, in a manner that endangers or is

Illinois

vague

likely to endanger any property or person, or committing

three or more traffic offenses

operating a vehicle in a contentious or antagonistic

Hawaii

manner that endangers the safety of another or of

vague

property

operating a vehicle while either the driver or a passenger

is brandishing a firearm, or any object similar in

Hawaii

specific

appearance, in such a manner as to reasonably induce

fear in the mind of another

operates a vehicle with a willful and wanton disregard for

Hawaii

vague

the life, limb or property of another

driving in a manner that evidences a pattern of dangerous

conduct contributing to the likelihood of a collision or

Connecticut

vague

necessitating evasive action by another operator of a

motor vehicle to avoid a collision.

Connecticut

driving recklessly

vague

Connecticut

failing to stop when directed by a police officer

specific

Drivers could be charged with aggressive driving if they

are cited for a combination of any three of the following

charges:

• using excessive speed

Arizona

vague

• driving recklessly

• changing lanes erratically

• being an immediate hazard to another person or

vehicle.

6

Drivers could be charged with aggressive driving if they

are cited for a combination of any three of the following

charges:

• committing two or more listed offenses that

include failing to obey a traffic control device

• passing on the right or on the shoulder

• tailgating or following too closely

Arizona

• failing to signal lane changes or to change lane

Specific

properly

• failing to yield the right-of-way

• running a red light or stop sign

• driving over the “gore” area entering or exiting

a highway

• passing a vehicle on the right by traveling off

the pavement

An aggressive driver is anyone who operates a motor

vehicle in an offensive, hostile or belligerent manner,

New Jersey

vague

thereby creating an unsafe environment for the remainder

of the motoring public.

The aggressive driver is identified through the following

violations of traffic regulations:

• Speeding (breaking the speed limit)

New Jersey

• Following Too Close (less than safe distance)

specific

• Driving While Intoxicated

• Disregard Of Traffic Signs and Signals

• Driving While Suspended

The aggressive driver is identified through the following

violations of traffic regulations:

New Jersey

• Unsafe Lane Change

vague

• Reckless, Careless or Inattentive Driving

• Improper Passing

Transportation Review: Aggressive Driving, Anne Teigen, National Conference of State Legislatures,

February 2007.

http://www.ncsl.org/print/transportation/aggressivedriving07.pdf

Pages 6 to 9 of this document include a chart similar to those shown above, with information on definitions and

penalties for 12 states.

NHTSA Summary Table on Aggressive Driving Laws, January 2001

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/enforce/speedlaws501/summtable_aggressive.htm

This Web site includes a similar chart as well, with specific legal language and penalties for six states.

Tracking Recent Legislation

NHTSA Safety Legislation Database, 2009

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/transportation/trafsafdb.htm

This database is a useful tool for keeping track of current and pending traffic safety legislation. Information can be

tracked by state and topic, including aggressive driving. The most recent aggressive driving legislation was passed

in 2007 by Nevada and Utah. Many other bills are currently pending for Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan,

Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Tennessee.

7

Effectiveness of Aggressive Driving Laws

“How Useful is the New Aggressive Driving Legislation?” Victor E. Flango and Ann L. Keith, Court Review,

Winter 2004

http://aja.ncsc.dni.us/courtrv/cr40_3and4/CR40-3FlangoKeith.pdf

This article assesses the experiences of states that have aggressive driving laws, and includes a comparison chart

(page 2 of the PDF) of driving statutes by state. The authors surveyed four states with aggressive driving laws and

the found that three of these states do not frequently issue citations. Although the remaining state, Florida, has a

significant number of aggressive driving violations, the violations do not carry a separate penalty. Of respondents

in all four states, 85 percent of law enforcement had never written a citation for aggressive driving, 90

percent of prosecutors had never or rarely charged a case, and 98 percent of judges had never or rarely

presided over a case. The most common causes of this lack of enforcement seem to be that reckless driving is

easier to prove and that the differences between reckless and aggressive driving are not clear. Asked if changes

could be made to increase the use of aggressive driving laws, most respondents said no: 62 percent of law

enforcement officers, 58 percent of prosecutors, and 75 percent of judges. Based on these results, the authors make

three recommendations:

1. Remove “intent” as an element of proof for aggressive driving.

2. Propose more severe penalties for aggressive driving.

3. Add an “aggressive driving” tag to other traffic offenses to permit enhancing the existing penalties and to

track the incidence of aggressive driving for statistical purposes that may lead to changes in legislation.

Aggressive Driving and the Law: A Symposium, NHTSA, May 1999

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/aggressive/Symposium/introduction.html

On January 22-23, 1999, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Federal Highway

Administration brought together an array of public safety, legal and adjudication representatives to discuss the

problems associated with aggressive driving. Participants included prosecutors, district court judges, law

enforcement and emergency personnel, district and state’s attorneys, criminal defense attorneys, safety advocates

and activists, researchers, and government policy and state public safety personnel.

The symposium sought to derive action steps toward solving the problem of aggressive driving as approached from

six different perspectives: (1) statutory approaches, (2) applied technology, (3) charging decisions, (4) sentencing

strategies, (5) community leadership, and (6) enforcement strategies. These six categories served as topic areas for

framing participant discussions and resulting recommendations developed in breakout sessions.

This conference led to the development of the National Aggressive Driving Guide: A Criminal Justice Approach,

published in September 2001 (see

a planning tool for states, and includes statutory strategies that state legislatures can tailor to their own uses.

The guide recommends that multiple violations occurring together or in rapid succession be the key to defining

aggressive driving, and recommends that the following model statute text be used to improve states’ reckless driving

a. A person who operates any motor vehicle with a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or

property commits the offense of reckless driving. “Willful or wanton” means the deliberate, conscious

indifference to the safety of persons or property. Proof of evil or malicious intent is not an element of

reckless driving.

b. Upon the trial of any civil or criminal action or proceeding stemming from acts alleged to have been

committed by any person operating a motor vehicle, proof that in the course of a continuous driving

episode, such person committed three moving violations, either alone or in combination with one

another, shall give rise to an inference that the vehicle was being operated with a willful and wanton

disregard for the safety of persons or property. Such inference shall not be conclusive, but shall be

considered along with all other evidence in determining whether a violation occurred.

c. All persons convicted of reckless driving shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, except as provided under

subsection (d), which follows.

8

d. All persons convicted of committing a violation of subsection (a) above shall be guilty of aggravated

reckless driving if the violation results in injury or permanent disability or disfigurement of another person.

Aggravated reckless driving is a felony.

General Resources on Aggressive Driving

Many of these resources address both the definition and prevalence of aggressive driving; text relevant to these

topics is summarized or excerpted within each citation.

Aggressive Driving: Research Update, AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, April 2009.

http://www.aaafoundation.org/pdf/AggressiveDrivingResearchUpdate2009.pdf

This paper reviews published scientific literature on aggressive driving; discusses various definitions of aggressive

driving; cites several specific behaviors that are typically associated with aggressive driving; and summarizes past

research on the individuals or groups most likely to behave aggressively.

Prevalence: This paper reviews published scientific literature on aggressive driving; discusses various

definitions of aggressive driving; cites several specific behaviors that are typically associated with aggressive

driving; and summarizes past research on the individuals or groups most likely to behave aggressively. It is

important to note that the data in this report, rather than applying a strict definition of aggressive driving,

quantifies the number of fatal crashes in which one or more driver actions typically associated with

aggressive driving were reported. 56 percent of fatal crashes from 2003 through 2007 were found to meet

this criterion. More detailed results can be found on pages 5-9.

Definitions: From pages 2-3, this report gives various definitions of aggressive driving by the NHTSA and

various researchers:

1. Tasca (2000, summarized below): “A driving behavior is aggressive if it is deliberate, likely to

increase the risk of collision and is motivated by impatience, annoyance, hostility, and/or an attempt

to save time”; behaviors include tailgating, weaving in and out of traffic, failure to yield the right of

way to other road users, preventing other drivers from passing, driving at speeds “far in excess of the

norm,” running stop signs or red lights, and several others.

2. NHTSA: “driving actions that markedly exceed the norms of safe driving behavior and that directly

affect other road users by placing them in unnecessary danger” and (for police) “when individuals

commit a combination of moving traffic offenses so as to endanger other persons or property.”

3. AAA: “We contend that any unsafe driving behavior that is performed deliberately and with ill

intention or disregard for safety constitutes aggressive driving.”

This report also distinguishes between:

• Aggressive Driving: Behaviors (speeding, tailgating, traffic violations, etc.)

• Road rage: Intent to cause physical harm

Aggressive Driving: A Literature Review, P. Ulleberg, Transportoekonomisk Institutt, April 2004.

The report presents a review of studies concerning aggressive driving behavior. The results of the review suggest

that driving behavior which can be labeled as “aggressive” is associated with increased accident risk.

A Guide for Addressing Aggressive-Driving Collisions, NCHRP Report 500, Volume 1, 2003.

http://safety.transportation.org/htmlguides/AggDrvr/assets/ADguide.pdf

This guide defines aggressive driving as “operating a motor vehicle in a selfish, pushy, or impatient manner, often

unsafely, that directly affects other drivers.” As part of the NCHRP series Guidance for Implementation of the

AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan, the guide provides strategies that can be employed to reduce the number of

crashes due to aggressive driving behavior.

9

Appendices that are not part of the PDF version, including Appendix 6:

Appendix 6: Toward Developing Strategies to Control Aggressive Driving: An Introduction,

Richard I. Wark, Roy E. Lucke, and Richard A. Raub, June 2002.

http://safety.transportation.org/htmlguides/AggDrvr/app06.htm

This document details strategies that operating agencies can use to address aggressive driving, and includes

sections on developing a definition for aggressive driving and instituting deterrence programs.

Prevalence: According to a NHTSA survey on 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. This

document suggests that congestion is a major cause of road rage, and includes an extensive

annotated bibliography.

Definition: An NCHRP workshop group suggested making the concept of aggressive driving

operationally measurable by specifying behaviors:

• Driving, or attempting to drive, at a speed different from the prevailing speed and affecting other

drivers by the following series of actions:

• Verbal or nonverbal expressions of anger aimed at other drivers when designed to encourage

retaliation on the part of other drivers.

• Deliberately ignoring traffic controls, usually demonstrated 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., appears to be taking

an unfair advantage, breaking notions of equity (e.g., ramp meter violations, shoulder riding).

“Risky, Aggressive, or Emotional Driving: Addressing the Need for Consistent Communication in Research,”

C. S. Dulla and E. S. Geller, Journal of Safety Research Vol. 34 No. 5, 2003: 559-566.

This article seeks to establish a standardized, unambiguous, operational definition of aggressive driving. The

authors suggest that the term “road rage” be eliminated from research, as it has been used inconsistently and has

little probability of being clarified and applied consistently. Instead, driving behaviors that endanger or have the

potential to endanger others should be considered as lying on a behavioral spectrum of dangerous driving. Three

dimensions of dangerous driving are delineated: 1) intentional acts of aggression toward others, 2) negative

emotions experienced while driving, and 3) risk-taking.

Bullying, Intimidation, Abuse and Assault on the Road—Selected Australasian Research and Comment on ‘Road

Rage’ and Aggressive Driving, STAYSAFE 58, edited by I.J. Faulks, December 2002. Sixteenth report of the Joint

Standing Committee on Road Safety of the 52nd Parliament, Parliament of New South Wales, Australia.

This 400-page compendium provides the full text of more than 20 studies covering research, legislation, policing,

cultural issues, and commentary on aggressive driving. It includes a 2002 analysis of crash statistics and driver

behaviors published by AAMI, an Australian insurance agency (see page 413 of this TSR).

We were contacted by Ian Faulks, editor of the report, who provided a synopsis of the graded aggressive driving

laws in New South Wales, which were enacted after the report was published:

• Menacing driving: Previous existing offense under the road transport legislation—the basic offense.

• Menacing driving with intent to menace: New offense under the road transport legislation. More serious,

as actions are manifestly intentional. Sustained sequence of behavior such as chasing, repeated driving or

swerving at someone.

• Predatory driving: New offense under the crimes legislation. Intentional action intended to cause harm or

significant fear.

10

Faulks adds, “If a crash occurs, or harm to a person, then general road transport and crimes offenses are used rather

than the aggressive driving offenses (but the aggressive driving offenses are typically charged as well).”

Phone: +61 2 9487 2727

For more information: Staysafe Committee (Road Safety), New South Wales Parliament,

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/parlment/committee.nsf/0/1A5E1DF230CB6A1F4A2563E000050584

“A Review of the Literature on Aggressive Driving Research,” Leo Tasca, Aggressive Driving Issues

Conference, 2000

http://www.aggressive.drivers.com/papers/tasca/tasca.pdf

One of the most frequently cited sources in the aggressive driving literature, this literature review “suggests that a

more precise definition of aggressive driving would focus on deliberate and willful driving behaviors that while not

intended to physically harm another road user show disregard for their safety and well-being.”

Prevalence: This review notes that no systematic observational studies of actual aggressive driving behavior on

highways are available—most studies involve surveys of the driving public relying on self-reported behaviors,

or contrived situations designed to provoke aggressive driving. However, the available data from public

opinion surveys suggests that many people believe aggressive driving to be on the rise. The Steel Alliance-

Canada Safety Council survey [2000] indicates that 73 percent of Ontario respondents believe aggressive

driving is increasing, while only 22 percent believe the amount of aggressive driving is unchanged. Further,

33 percent of the respondents in a NHTSA survey [1998] reported they felt driving was more dangerous than it

was in the year preceding the survey. (See pages 11-12 of the PDF.)

Definition: This study also reviews aggressive driving definitions by AAA, NHSTA and others, and suggests

that “road rage” be viewed as a criminal behavior addressed by existing criminal statutes, while aggressive

driving be given a more precise definition as follows: “A driving behavior is aggressive if it is deliberate,

likely to increase the risk of collision and is motivated by impatience, annoyance, hostility and/or an

attempt to save time.” Specified behaviors include tailgating, weaving, failure to yield, and many others.

These behaviors were identified in a 2000 survey by the Canada Safety Council of 1,008 Canadian residents

concerning what driving behaviors they considered aggressive. (See pages 1-2 of the PDF.)

Aggressive Driving Enforcement: Strategies for Implementing Best Practices, NHTSA, January 2000

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

This guide was designed by NHTSA to provide step-by-step assistance to law enforcement personnel to develop an

aggressive driving enforcement program.

Prevalence: In 1998, “the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published a telephone

survey of 6,000 drivers, 16 years and older, who discussed their experiences, beliefs and behaviors regarding

speeding and unsafe driving, including aggressive driving. More than 60 percent of the drivers interviewed

believe that unsafe driving by others is a major personal threat to them and their families. Three out of

four drivers feel that doing something about unsafe driving is very important.” NHTSA claims that there is an

increase in the prevalence of aggressive driving caused by an increase in congestion (the number of

registered vehicles rose by 19 percent from 1985 to 1995) over a period of time in which the number of

enforcement officers has decreased; see the chart on this page:

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

Definition: “The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) defines aggressive driving as

‘when individuals commit a combination of moving traffic offenses so as to endanger other persons or

property.’ Some other communities define aggressive driving as ‘the operation of a motor vehicle involving

three or more moving violations as part of a single continuous sequence of driving acts, which is likely to

endanger any person or property.’” See

11

Distinction from Road Rage: “Road rage differs from aggressive driving. It is a criminal offense and is ‘an

assault with a motor vehicle or other dangerous weapon by the operator or passenger(s) of one motor vehicle

on the operator or passenger(s) of another motor vehicle or is caused by an incident that occurred on a

This guide also includes examples of aggressive driving enforcement programs in various states.

Aggressive Driving: Background and Overview Report, National Conference of State Legislatures; Environment,

Energy and Transportation Program; January 2000

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/transportation/aggrdriv.htm

This report gives a comprehensive overview of issues related to aggressive driving—including definitions, law

enforcement efforts, and legislative initiatives.

Prevalence: A 1998 NHTSA survey of 6,000 drivers indicated that 33 percent felt driving was more dangerous

than in the year before, and 62 percent said the behavior of another driver had been a threat to them in the last

year.

A 1998 New York study showed that most drivers think aggressive driving is a problem, and 29 percent see it

every day. According to a AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety study, incidents of aggressive driving increased

by 7 percent every year between 1990 and 1996, as reported in police records and newspaper articles. See

Definition: “A recent report prepared for NHTSA, from aggressive driving focus groups with legal and

adjudication staff, discussed definitions. Participants in the groups, which included judges, prosecutors,

defense attorneys and law enforcement personnel, generally agreed that aggressive driving is a sequence of

Legal History: In 1997, Maryland and Virginia were the first states to propose specific penalties for aggressive

driving. In 1998, Arizona was the first state to pass a law creating a specific aggressive driving offense.

Nevada and Delaware followed in 1999. Nine states introduced 26 bills in 1999. See

Are Road Rage and Aggressive Driving Overhyped?

“Aggressive Driving: A Survey of Attitudes, Opinions and Behaviors,” Ward Vanlaar, Herb Simpson, Dan

Mayhew, and Robyn Robertson, Journal of Safety Research Vol. 39 No. 4, 2008: 375-381.

A public opinion poll of 1,201 Canadian drivers found that a “considerable percentage” of drivers admitted to

aggressive driving. The authors conclude that “When gauging people’s attitudes, opinions, and behaviors, it

becomes clear that aggressive driving is a considerable problem.”

Transportation Review: Aggressive Driving, Anne Teigen, National Conference of State Legislatures, February

2007.

http://www.ncsl.org/print/transportation/aggressivedriving07.pdf

This review presents state legislative action regarding aggressive driving, discusses the effectiveness of state

enforcement programs, and lists federal action regarding aggressive driving. Cited research includes a study (also

mentioned elsewhere in this TSR) that reviewed police and newspaper accounts of aggressive driving from 1990 to

1996. The study found 10,037 incidents of violent, aggressive driving resulting in at least 218 fatalities and another

12,610 injuries.

The review also cites aggressive driving data from Delaware: “In 2003, Delaware listed aggressive driving as a

contributing factor in 53 percent of the 127 fatal motor vehicle crashes that year. Delaware estimates that on

average, acts of aggressive driving are involved in 43 percent of all traffic crashes in the state annually.”

Pages 6 to 9 of this document provide a table of aggressive driving laws in 12 states.

12

“Is Road Rage Increasing? Results of a Repeated Survey,” Reginald G. Smart, Robert E. Mann, Jinhui Zhao and

Gina Stoduto, Journal of Safety Research Vol. 36 No. 2, 2005: 195-201.

Abstract: “This paper reports on trends in road rage victimization and perpetration based on repeated cross-sectional

telephone surveys of Ontario adults in 2001, 2002 and 2003. Logistic regression analyses examined differences

between years in road rage victimization and perpetration compared with the previous year, controlling for

demographic characteristics. Results showed 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.”

“Is Road Rage a Serious Traffic Problem?” R. G. Smart, R. E. Mann, Traffic Injury Prevention Vol. 3 No. 3,

September 2002: 183-189.

This paper analyzed current road rage research with a view toward assessing the evidence on several questions, such

as: what are the definitions employed; is road rage increasing; is road rage related to aggressive or rage behavior

generally; is road rage related to alcohol and drug use, or to various environmental problems such as overcrowding

and congestion; and what is missing in road rage research and what new research is most needed?

“American ‘Road Rage’: A Scary and Tangled Cultural-Legal Pastiche,” R. F. Blomquist, Nebraska Law

Review Vol. 80 No. 1, 2001: 17-63.

This paper presents a cultural, legal and policy perspective on the implications of the evolving use of road rage

parlance over the last 10 years, focusing on providing a better understanding of the legal perspective of this term and

its ramifications.

Road Rage and Aggressive Driving: Steering Clear of Highway Warfare, Leon James and Diane Nahl, 2000.

http://www.amazon.com/Road-Rage-Aggressive-Driving-Steering/dp/1573928461

Four chapters of this book address “conflict mentality,” considering whether “road rage” is a real phenomenon or

the creation of a media thirsty for drama. The book also addresses the manifestation of road rage worldwide, and

road rage as a symptom of the expanding “age of rage.”

“Road Rage—Media Hype or Serious Road Safety Issue?” Barry J. Elliot, Third International Conference on

Injury Prevention and Control, May 1999.

http://www.drivers.com/article/165/

The paper examines the nature and extent of the behaviors labeled “road rage” in the media. It argues that the

terminology “road rage” should not be used and that major, serious forms of “road rage” should be regarded

as violence and assault. An excerpt: “Aggressive behaviors labeled as ‘road rage’ are often a result of bad driving

habits on the part of at least one of the parties involved. Behaviors subsumed under the heading of ‘road rage’

only rarely lead to injury. ‘Road violence,’ on the other hand, is a criminal matter and does not justify any

diversion of road safety resources to the problem.”

“Concerns About Aggressive Driving Mount in Beltway Survey,” A. Karr, Traffic Safety Vol. 98 N. 5,

September 8, 1998.

Abstract: “Drivers’ concerns about safety hazards posed by other drivers’ aggressive behavior increased sharply

over 3 years, according to a 1997 NHTSA survey of drivers who use the Washington, D.C., Capital Beltway. The

results show aggressive driving as the top concern of “general” motorists interviewed. Eight focus groups were

interviewed: three groups of general drivers, three groups of commercial drivers, and two groups of aggressive

drivers. Fully 75% of the aggressive drivers said they always or often compete with other cars in traffic jams,

while none of the general-group participants said they do so that frequently. The majority of aggressive drivers

blame unsafe driving on others while admitting that they typically travel above the posted speed limits.”

“Road Rage Versus Reality: A Media Coinage That Rests More on the Infectious Appeal of Alliteration Than

on the Weight of Evidence,” Michael Fumento, Atlantic Monthly, 1998: 12-17.

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98aug/roadrage.htm

13

The author states that no data support the existence of road rage as an epidemic, or even as a growing phenomenon.

He challenges the often-cited 1996 study by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety:

The study has numerous problems. Consider that the 218 deaths Mizell claimed were directly attributable to

aggressive driving occurred in a period during which 290,000 people died in traffic accidents. He identified

12,610 people whose injuries were attributable to aggressive driving out of a total of 23 million people injured

by vehicles. And the survey was hardly scientific. Rather, Mizell simply drew on stories from about thirty

newspapers, reports from sixteen police departments, and insurance-company claim reports. He didn't even

demonstrate that the changes in his numbers from year to year were statistically significant. Couldn't an

increase in the number of incidents reported simply reflect increased awareness of and publicity for aggressive

driving, along with an explosion in the use of the term “road rage”? Mizell essentially dismissed this idea both

when I interviewed him recently (“We would have picked up on this”) and in his report, where he called the

influence of such factors “almost certainly not significant.”

The author cites declining accident, fatality, and injury rates as evidence against the assertion that aggressive driving

is a growing epidemic.

“The Road Rage Epidemic: Hype or Reality?” Driver/Education Vol. 7 No. 3, Summer 1997: 1-2.

http://www.drivers.com/article/168/

This article states that road rage is a massive problem, and one that is getting worse as traffic becomes more intense.

However, it should not distract the traffic safety community from the real issue of unsafe driving and crash rates.

While a problem group of drivers may cause crashes out of proportion to their numbers, crashes generally occur

because of a combination of driver inattentiveness and improper lookout. Although road rage may be a

convenient way to piggyback driving issues into the media, treating the symptoms of traffic problems will not

solve the underlying causes: drivers who are ill-equipped to deal with the modern automobile, on the modern road,

in a skillful and mature manner.

Aggressive Driving: Three Studies, Louis Mizell, Matthew Joint and Dominic Connell, AAA Foundation for Traffic

Safety, March 1997

http://www.aaafoundation.org/resources/index.cfm?button=agdrtext

This page provides highlights from three papers that address various aspects of aggressive driving. Two papers cite

studies done in the U.K., while the third gives details on a 1996 AAA study that is frequently cited in other

aggressive driving literature. In that study, researchers identified 10,037 incidents of “aggressive driving” from 1990

to 1996 in articles in 30 major newspapers, reports from 16 police departments, and insurance company claim

reports. These incidents killed 218 people. See

14

STAYSAFE 58

BULLYING, INTIMIDATION, ABUSE AND

ASSAULT ON THE ROAD - SELECTED

AUSTRALASIAN RESEARCH AND COMMENT

ON ‘ROAD RAGE’ AND AGGRESSIVE DRIVING

ISBN 0 7310 5123 1

ISSN 0811-4005

Report No. 18/52

December 2002

STAYSAFE 58

2

STAYSAFE 58

MEMBERS OF THE

STAYSAFE COMMITTEE

Mr Grant McBride, M.P. (Chairman), Member for The Entrance

The Hon. Ian West, M.L.C. (Vice Chairman)

Mr John Bartlett M.P., Member for Port Stephens

Mr David Campbell M.P., Member for Keira

Mr Kevin Greene M.P., Member for Georges River

Mr Russell Smith M.P., Member for Bega and Opposition Whip

Mr Thomas George M.P., Member for Lismore

The Hon. John Jobling, M.L.C., Opposition Whip

The Hon. John Tingle, M.L.C.

3

STAYSAFE 58

STAFF OF THE STAYSAFE COMMITTEE

Director of the STAYSAFE Committee Mr Ian Faulks

Project Officer

Ms Cheryl Samuels

Committee Officer

Ms Jodie Young

Assistant Committee Officer

Ms Susan Tanzer

4

STAYSAFE 58

CHAIRMAN’S FOREWORD

Grant McBride MP, Member for The Entrance

Chairman, STAYSAFE

Joint Standing Committee on Road Safety

This report arises from the STAYSAFE Committee’s investigative report into the

recent media and community concern about the phenomenon of ‘road rage’.

During the course of the STAYSAFE Committee’s inquiry into aggressive and

intimidatory and threatening behaviour by drivers towards other road users, a large

number of research and review papers and documents were gathered by the

Committee. A considerable number of these papers and documents were either

unknown or little known to most road safety workers. Some of the papers and

documents had remained unpublished for a variety of reasons, or if published had

either not received wide dissemination or had been issued many years ago and were

largely forgotten and uncited by more recent road safety workers.

The STAYSAFE Committee requested its Director, Mr Ian Faulks, to edit a

compilation of the papers and documents addressing issues associated with the

actions of drivers in obstructing, harassing, humiliating and threatening other road

users.

The STAYSAFE Committee hopes that this compilation of papers and other

documents relating to the phenomenon of ‘road rage’ will assist further research and

policy formulation to address risky and unsafe actions by drivers on New South

Wales roads.

Acknowledgments

A significant aspect of the STAYSAFE Committee’s operation is the bipartisan

manner in which the Committee members conduct their inquiries and deliberations. I

am grateful for the hard work of my colleagues, be they Government Members,

Opposition Members, or from the cross bench.

In the preparation of this report, the STAYSAFE Committee has been ably served by

its staff, in particular, the Director, Mr Ian Faulks, who selected and edited the papers

for inclusion. Dr Paul Adams, past Committee Officer, also assisted in the editing of

the papers included in this report.

I commend this report to Parliament.

5

STAYSAFE 58

6

STAYSAFE 58

CONTENTS

Members of the STAYSAFE Committee

3

Chairman’s Foreword

5

Grey, E., Triggs, T. and Haworth, N.

9-83

Driver aggression: The role of personality, social

Characteristics, risk and motivation.

James, M.

84-86

Road rage

STAYSAFE Committee

87-100

Aggressive and intimidatory driving.

Wright, P.G., Gaulton, P.E. and Miller, I.

101-106

Road rage: An exploratory study.

Mooren, L.

107-120

Road trauma—An act of violence?

Gray, S.

121-124

Road rage: A hot issue or just lukewarm?

Scrinis, G.

125-126

The anatomy of road rage—Aggressive driver behaviour may

well be caused by the car itself.

Bay Street Communications

127-144

Aggressive driving/Young drivers: Road safety

campaign literature review.

Purdon Associates Pty Ltd..

145-152

Aggressive driving focus group discussions.

Purdon Associates Pty Ltd. and Bay Street Communications

153-169

Road safety campaign evaluation report:

‘Let’s stop driving people mad’.

Anderson, R., Shaw, P. & Stuart, E.

170-172

The ‘Let’s Stop Driving People Mad’ campaign: Can you reduce

aggressive driving?

Elliot & Shanahan Research

173-201

An examination of the nature and extent of ‘road rage’

—A discussion paper.

7

STAYSAFE 58

Harding, R., Morgan, F. Indermaur, D., Ferrante, A. and Blagg, H.

202-219

Road rage and the epidemiology of violence: Something old,

something new.

Indermaur, D.

220-230

Preventing driving related violence

Brewer, A.

231-246

Road rage: What, who, when, where and how.

Butler-Bowden, E.

247-255

Road hogs to road rage.

Hatfield, J. and Job, R.F.S.

256-261

‘Road rage’: Methods for reducing aggression on the road.

Elliott, B.

262-271

‘Road rage’: Media hype or serious road safety issue?

Fraine, G., Smith, S. and Zinkiewicz, L.

272-279

The private car: A home on the road?

Lupton, D.

280-291

Monsters in metal cocoons: ‘Road rage’ and cyborg bodies

Lupton, D.

292-301

Constructing ‘road rage’ as news: An analysis of two Australian

newspapers.

Lupton, D.

302-314

Road rage: Drivers’ understandings and experiences

Sanders, S.

315-363

Aggression and violence associated with motor vehicle use

Redshaw, S.

364-371

Can speeding be justified?

Mayhew, C. and Quinlan, M.

372-380

Occupational violence in long distance road transport:

A study of of 300 Australian truck drivers

Kelly, H.

381-398

Rage on our roads

AAMI

399-407

2002 AAMI Crash Index

8

STAYSAFE 58

DRIVER AGGRESSION: THE ROLE OF

PERSONALITY, SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS,

RISK AND MOTIVATION

E.M. Grey, T.J. Triggs and N.L. Haworth

Monash University Accident Research Centre

SOURCE: Grey, E.M., Triggs, T.J. & Haworth,

N.L. (1989). Driver aggression: The role of

personality, social characteristics, risk and

motivation. Report CR 81. Canberra ACT:

Federal Office of Road Safety (FORS).

The report addresses the topic of aggression in driving, with a consideration of

a number of subject areas: theories of aggression; the definition of aggressive

behaviour in driving; measurements of aggression; extreme forms of driver

aggression; less extreme forms of driver aggression. The report’s conclusions

focus on society’s role in aggressive behaviour, strategies for coping with

aggression, including driver education and screening, and directions for future

research.

SUMMARY

This report addresses the topic of aggression in driving and related areas of research. A

range of different subject areas are reviewed including theories of aggression, factors

contributing to aggressive driving behaviour, the measurement of aggression, the

characteristics of driver groups at high risk of crash involvement, strategies for combating

aggression in driving and the identification of a number of research issues.

Approaches to the study of aggression

There are a number of different theoretical approaches to the study of aggression. However,

none are considered to be complete explanations but reflect the orientation and

requirements of the researchers who developed them. Biological theories consider

aggressive behaviour to be innate, although specific responses can be modified by

experience. In the psychoanalytic tradition, the frustration-aggression hypothesis proposes

that the origin of aggressive behaviour is to be found in external factors. Finally, social

learning approaches argue that aggression is a learned response through observation or

imitation of socially relevant others. Aggression is the result of the norms, rewards,

punishments and models to which individuals have been exposed. Although these three

approaches differ in the emphasis they place on the role of biological (genetic inheritance

and evolutionary) processes and experience (learning through exposure to environmental

factors), they generally assume that aggressive behaviour is the combined result of these

factors.

9

STAYSAFE 58

Defining aggression in driving

Aggression can be defined as any behaviour directed at causing physical or mental injury.

However, as Bandura (1983) points out, the classification of an act as aggressive depends

on subjective judgements of intention and causality. For the purposes of this report, the

concept of intent is useful in discriminating between driving acts where the intent was to

cause harm and other driving acts which reveal a willingness to chance dangerous

outcomes in order to fulfil the driver’s motives. This latter situation necessarily encompasses

behaviour in which the driver may not intend to harm other road users and may not be aware

that significant risk is involved. Two definitions of aggression in driving are proposed which

encompass the range of possible aggressive behaviours. The first definition of aggression in

driving includes what would normally be classified as extreme behaviour. These are acts of

murder, suicide and wilful and malicious assaults (physical or psychological). The second

definition encompasses the concept of risk taking. This driving behaviour is aggressive in

appearance, but does not necessarily imply intent to cause harm, although it may

subsequently put other road users at risk.

The motives of drivers

The behaviour of the road user (of which aggression is one aspect) needs to be considered

within the framework of the social and psychological context in which it occurs. The view is

expressed that the road user’s behaviour is seen as reflecting a balance between personal

motives (for example, thrills, the desire for speed or position in the traffic stream) and the

subjective risk of crash involvement. Central to this view is the argument proposed by

Naatanen and Summala (1974, 1976) that drivers in general do not perceive any risk of

crash involvement. This lack of subjective risk of accident involvement allows drivers to fulfil

a variety of other needs. Another approach to the concept of subjective risk has different

implications for driver risk taking. This is the concept of risk homeostasis which argues that

road users always operate at the maximum level of risk that they are prepared to accept.

This theory assumes that the driver is aware of and desires the level of risk he or she is

taking. Other factors may also influence aggressive or risky behaviour. There is evidence

that stress and alcohol may influence aggressive behaviour. In contrast, however, there

appears to be relatively little information available with regard to the effects of other drugs

and disease on aggressive behaviour.

Methods of Measurement

For the most part, investigations of aggression in driving have focussed on the evaluation of

personality variables. A large number of studies have used psychometric tests in order to

measure or predict aggressive driving behaviour. Psychometric tests used in the

investigation of aggression in driving have included; projective techniques, objective

techniques, and psychiatric or more general interviews. The use of these tests is not without

serious problems with regard to their reliability and validity. Adequately standardised tests

employed in the correct way may provide useful information about an individual’s personal

characteristics, although it may be only qualitative in nature.

Methodological issues

Studies comparing driver characteristics and crash record have produced equivocal results.

While many studies claim to have distinguished between crash involved and crash free

drivers on the basis of particular personality or social traits, the majority of these findings

have not been validated. These differences in findings may be due to differing or inadequate

methodology. Methodological problems found in these studies include; inadequate control

for variation in exposure and hazard level, small sample sizes, use of inadequately

standardised tests, and failure to validate findings with different populations.

Extreme forms of driver aggression

There are a number of different dimensions to be considered when discussing aggression on

the road. These include how society views traffic offenders and the association between

10

STAYSAFE 58

crash involvement and crime (including suicide and murder) in the community. The argument

is made that society for the most part regards people who break the law as deviants.

However, this attitude does not extend to people convicted of motor vehicle offences. A

number of researchers consider that these people are still regarded by society as law

abiding citizens whose behaviour is not only tolerated but excused. Researchers have

considered the idea that serious traffic offenders may be more likely to have criminal records

than non-offenders. This idea has been extrapolated to argue that in societies in which there

are high rates of violent crime there will also be high rates of deaths and injuries by motor

vehicle crash. The results of several studies suggest that there is a correlation between

rates of death or injury by motor vehicle crash and violent crime. However, due to

methodological problems, these results should be treated with great caution. Fatalities which

are the result of motor vehicle crashes are very rarely certified as suicides. Evidence

suggests that probably substantially less than five percent of all deaths by motor vehicle

crash are the result of suicide. In addition, while the characteristics of successful suicides

and those involved in fatal accidents were considerably more deviant than the general

population, greater deviancy was found in the suicide sample than in the crash sample.

Other reports of wilful acts of violence or malicious damage on the road directed against

other road users are rare although they do occur.

Less extreme forms of driver aggression

The concept of ‘accident proneness’ (as it is always referred to in the literature) has had a

major influence on the study of personality factors of crash-involved drivers. Early

investigations into personal factors and crashes originate at least in part from studies of

accident proneness. Accident proneness can be defined (very broadly) as a propensity to

have accidents. This propensity refers to one or more personality trait/s or type/s. The

concept has a number of problems and has generally fallen into disfavour as it has failed to

provide a means by which to predict individual accident involvement. While accident

proneness has for the most part been put aside, the research into aggression in driving

continues to embody the notion that some individuals by virtue of their personal

characteristics are more likely to be involved in accidents than others. Drivers at high risk of

crash involvement exhibit a broad range of personal and social characteristics. Certain

demographic features are associated with increased risk of being involved in a crash. These

include age less than 25, education of less than twelve years, being a semi-skilled or

unskilled worker, single marital status and low socioeconomic status. Within this population

of high risk drivers are a number of subgroups which include crash-repeating drivers, people

who drive under the influence of alcohol, young drivers (particularly young men) and possibly

the mentally ill. Personal factors which have been identified as associated with motor

vehicle crashes include generally high levels of aggression and hostility, competitiveness,

less concern for others, poor driving attitudes, driving for emotional release, impulsiveness

and risk taking. A background of social disruption and deviancy appears to be more

common amongst high crash and/or violation drivers. The potential value of research into

the personality and social characteristics of problem drivers lies in establishing effective

means of’ predicting crash reliability. However, while some consistency has been found in

these characteristics, there appears to be no single test or test battery by which individual

accident liability can be predicted.

The role of aggression in driving

The attention focussed on the role of aggression in driving and the personality

characteristics of repeated crash and conviction-involved drivers appears unwarranted given

the likely contribution of these factors to crash causation. The accurate identification of such

individuals is problematic. Furthermore, the effect of removing these individuals from the

driving population would appear to be comparatively small as they can be considered to

constitute only a small proportion of the driving population. Also, in general the composition

of the crash repeater group is not constant from year to year. The extent of the problem also

needs to be questioned. A study investigating the contribution of aggression to road crash

11

STAYSAFE 58

statistics claims that of the human factors identified as being involved in crashes only 0.6

percent were identified as frustration or aggression and 1.6 percent as reckless driving

(Sabey and Staughton, 1975 cited in Hampson, 1984).

Concluding comments

There can be little doubt that there is a substantial learned component (at least in the ways

and situations in which aggression is expressed) to aggressive behaviour. The argument is

made that society as a whole determines the level of safety margins. Risk taking and

competitiveness can be considered, in part, to be encouraged by society.

Further understanding of the context in which aggressive driving takes place is required.

Possible strategies for coping with aggressive driving include; screening drivers and

modifying driver behaviour

(enforcement and driver education). However, attempts to

modify driver attitudes have been largely unsuccessful. Further research is required to

identify the reasons for the general lack of effectiveness of driver education and publicity

campaigns.

The study of risk taking and risk assessment by drivers may be a more productive line of

research ban attempting to identify aggressive personality traits. Greater understanding of

the contexts in which aggressive or risky driving takes place is required. The study of the

personality and social characteristics of crash involved drivers may not be productive as

these traits have been found to change with time, age and situation and cannot yet be used

to predict accurately the crash history of individual drivers.

Any further research investigating possible causal links between aggression and road traffic

crashes using psychometric testing needs to employ stricter methodological controls than

those used to date. Given the apparently small number of drivers involved repeatedly in

crashes and the inadequacy of the psychometric instruments available, it may be more

productive (in terms of countermeasures) to concentrate on other areas of research.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

For the last twenty years, significant progress has been made in upgrading the safety

characteristics of both vehicles and the roadway environment. However, it is now

recognised that many of the easily implemented improvements on road safety resulting from

initiatives in these two areas have now been achieved. As a result, some road safety

practitioners are encouraging increased emphasis to issues relating on driver behaviour and

performance.

While road users are only one component in a complex interacting system, they

nevertheless determine to a very large degree the level of road safety that is achieved. The

personal attributes of drivers, along with their abilities and limitations, have a significant

effect on the number and type of crashes that occur. For example, it is known that young

males, as a group, are overrepresented in crash statistics.

One personal attribute frequently cited as a contributing factor to road crashes is aggression.

For example, eye witnesses will report that one vehicle appeared to be driven in an

aggressive or hostile manner. Statements concerning the aggressive tendencies of a

particular driver are to be heard in courts of law. The purpose of this report is primarily to

examine the construct of aggression and to review related topics.

Theories of aggression will be briefly reviewed in the report to illustrate the diversity of

approaches to the topic. This will provide a basis for examining issues concerning

aggression on the road. However, it can be generally said the more basic research in the

12

STAYSAFE 58

area of aggression has had relatively little influence on considerations linking road safety

and aggression.

Aggression can be regarded as an expression of a driver’s motives, as a manifestation of

risk taking in a particular environment, as a more permanent personality factor, or as the

primary factor in some drivers experiencing repeated crashes (the so-called ‘accident prone’

driver). Because aggression on the road is closely related to the concepts of motives, risk

taking, personality, and accident proneness, these topics will also be reviewed in some

detail.

Investigators have observed that aggression can take a wide range of forms. Murder and

suicide on the road would represent the more extreme form of aggression, and these areas

are reviewed. Aggression in its less extreme forms has often been considered in terms of

the prediction of traffic crashes by psychological tests of individual characteristics or, less

frequently, by observations of behaviour on the road. The focus here is on studies

concerning personality or social factors, rather than tests of abilities such as information

processing. A number of deficiencies in this literature will be identified.

Crash producing factors associated with the topic of aggression and personal characteristics

will be discussed, including the role of alcohol, the young driver and the mentally ill. It is

interesting to note that much of the research in this field was conducted more than twenty

years ago. The relatively little research in recent times probably reflects the judgement of

many investigators that the identification of drivers likely to have crashes by such means is

not a fruitful approach. There appears to be a widespread belief that research in this pea will

probably not result in substantial and effective countermeasures Nevertheless, some

research topics can be identified that are deserving of attention, and these are discussed at

the conclusion of the report.

APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF AGGRESSION

The range of definitions of the term aggression reflect the diversity of approaches which

have been developed to investigate the concept. None of these approaches can be

considered complete explanations of the phenomenon of aggression. However, each

appears to reflect a different aspect

(Barchas,

1981) depending on the needs of the

researchers who developed it. One of the difficulties in aggression research has been the

freedom with which it has been applied to both human and animal behaviour both in every

day usage and in research. As Brain (1981) notes, the concept of aggression as applied to

man:

phenomena.

reasonable action depending on the convictions of the observer.

between biological, environmental and experiential factors.

The area of aggression research is associated with an extremely large selection of papers

from such diverse areas of research as physiology, zoology, psychology and sociology and

has involved research into both animal and human aggression. This chapter is not intended

to provide an in-depth analysis of the various approaches to the study of aggression but will

briefly consider a number of distinct approaches to the study of aggression. In addition the

associated concepts’ of motivation and personality will be briefly considered.

13

STAYSAFE 58

Theories of aggression

Biological approaches

Biological theories of aggression emphasise the innateness of the aggressive response

(Edmunds and Kendrick, 1980). The genetic material of a species is seen as the primary

determinant of a range of possible behaviours (including aggression) (Barchas, 1981). This

base may be modified by experience. This is not to imply that there are no differences in

patterns of aggressive behaviour between humans and animals particularly primates.

However, it is generally assumed that some similar principles of behaviour may be seen in

both groups. From an evolutionary perspective, emotions are one of the most important

traits to have developed in humans. In this perspective, emotions are regarded as having

evolved for specific functions

(Plutchik and Kellerman,

1980). Emotions are seen as

communicators from one animal to the next, providing information about the probability of

occurrence of a given behaviour. Emotions are viewed as being basically adaptive, helping

to organise the animal’s behaviour in a way which meets the demands of the environment.

Ethological theories A major biological approach to the study of aggression is that of the

classical ethologists

(those concerned with detailed observation of behaviour). Most

classical ethologists claim that aggression is in part a consequence of an organism’s

biological inheritance, making it subject to evolutionary pressures. Aggression is regarded

as fulfilling useful biological functions. However, some researchers make no claims

regarding the innateness of aggressive behaviour

(Brain,

1981). Ethological views of

aggression have been received pessimistically by some (Brain, 1981). Hinde (1978, cited in

Brain, 1981) notes that there is no dispute that aggressive behaviour has been selected as

an adaptive characteristic in a larger number of the higher species other than humans.

Hinde has argued for the survival value of aggressive behaviour. Lorenz (1966, cited in

Brain,

1981) has emphasised ‘the utility of aggression to social organisation in human

society’

(p.

616). Fibl-Eibesfeldt

(1971, cited in Brain,

1981) argues for the view that

aggression may have cohesive force in a society when one common enemy has been

identified. From the biological point of view, man can be seen as being

‘biologically

predisposed to behave in a fashion that can be label led as ?aggression? under defined

circumstances of experience and in the presence of particular environmental factors’ (Brain,

1981, p. 619). The majority of ethologists agree that situational and experiential factors are

important in the control of aggression. However, the degree to which aggression (in humans

particularly) is determined by genetic, physiological or learning factors is open to debate. A

debate which according to Brain is ‘inherently sterile’ (p. 619).

Psychoanalytic theory Another approach to the study of aggression is based on

psychoanalytic theory. Freud viewed aggression as a basic instinct or a fundamental need

or drive for aggressive behaviour (Barchas, 1981). Aggressive behaviour occurs when need

for aggression has built to such a level that it can no longer be contained. However, through

socialisation and resolution of developmental stages of growth, the aggressive drive can be

attached to more constructive behaviours (Barchas, 1981)

Drive theories: The frustration-aggression hypothesis

The general principles of the frustration-aggression hypothesis were developed from the

psychoanalytic tradition and the work of Freud (Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer and Sears,

1939). However, in contrast to Freud, Dollard et al (1939) proposed that the origin of

aggressive behaviour was to be found in external factors (that is, accumulated frustrating

experiences) whereas Freud had postulated an internal (or instinctive) base for aggressive

behaviour. Initially, in the original statement of the frustration-aggression hypothesis (Dollard

et al, 1939), it was assumed that aggressive behaviour was always the consequence of

frustration. It was hypothesised that a one-to-one relationship existed between frustration

and aggression. Aggression was defined as ‘an act whose goal response is injury to an

14

STAYSAFE 58

organism (or organism surrogate)’ Dollard et al, 1939, p. 11). Frustration was defined as

‘that condition which exists when a goal-response suffers interference’ (p. 11). The intensity

with which the frustration was experienced was seen to depend upon three factors. These

included the strength of the instigation to the frustrated response, the degree of interference

with the frustrated response, and the number of previous goal-response sequences

frustrated. Obviously, the stronger the feelings of frustration, the stronger the aggressive

response. This definition of aggression was later revised (Miller, 1941, cited in Kaufmann,

1965) to say that frustration produces an instigation to aggression. The instigation may or

may not be strong enough to provoke aggressive behaviour. However, when aggression

has been elicited, the organism will be instigated to attack an opponent. Berkowitz (1962,

1981) subsequently argued that an organism has a tendency to continue an activity until its

goal has been reached. Inability to achieve this goal causes frustration. Catharsis (as

Berkowitz terms it) occurs when and because the aggressor achieves his or her aggressive

goal. Contrary to the arguments of Dollard et a] (1939), Berkowitz (1981) argues that the

occurrence of aggressive behaviour (or the achievement of an aggressive goal) would

decrease only the aggressive instigation that had provoked the behaviour and not reduce

accumulated instigations that are the result of previous frustrations. Berkowitz (1981) notes

that it is not possible to say that only one type of aggression exists or that there is only one

sort of aggressive goal. He goes on to argue that it is worthwhile to differentiate between

hostile and instrumental aggression. In hostile aggression the goal is to injure the object of

the attack, whereas in instrumental aggression the primary goal of aggressive behaviour is

to reach a goal beyond causing injury to the victim of the attack, such as domination, access

to resources and so on. It could be hypothesised that much of the aggression’ observed on

the road would correspond to this second type.

Social learning theories

Social learning theorists argue that aggression is not due to instinct or drive, but is the result

of the norms, rewards, punishment and models to which individuals have been exposed

(Bandura,

1983).

Aggression is therefore viewed as a learned response, through

observation or imitation of socially relevant others

(Barchas,

1981). The more often

aggressive behaviour is reinforced the more likely it is to occur again. For example values

which indicate that ‘to be a man, sometimes you have to stand and fight’. If parents punish

children for aggressive behaviour, such behaviour may soon become inhibited in the

presence of the parents, however, the imitative response will be strongly learned.

Aggressive behaviour would then be expected to occur in situations in which the parent is

not present. Physically punishing children for aggressive behaviour may effectively act as a

model for aggressive behaviour.

Biological mechanisms set limits on the types of aggressive behaviours that can develop and

influence the rate of learning (Randura, 1983). In the social learning view, individuals are

understood to be endowed with neurophysiological mechanisms which allow them to behave

in an aggressive way. However, the elicitation of aggressive behaviour depends on the

occurrence of appropriate stimulation and is largely under cognitive control (Bandura, 1983).

Thus, the actual form the aggressive behaviour will take, the frequency of its occurrence and

the circumstances in which it arises will depend on complex social learning factors (Bandura,

1983).

Aggressive behaviours may be learned through observation from aggressive models.

Bandura (1983) proposes that aggressive behaviour patterns can be obtained in Western

society from three primary sources. Possibly the most fundamental of these is the role of

family members in the modelling of aggressive behaviour. However, the family is contained

within a complex social system which plays an important secondary role in the modelling of

aggressive behaviour patterns. Finally, the mass media is viewed as the third most

important source of aggressive behaviour modelling for individuals. According to Bandura

(1983) there is mounting evidence that television affects behaviour and may act as a

15

STAYSAFE 58

symbolic model for aggressive behaviour. He goes on to say that television has been found

to affect behaviour in four ways; by teaching aggressive behaviour styles, altering restraints

over aggressive behaviour, desensitising and habituating viewers to aggressive behaviour,

and shaping viewers’ images of reality, upon which they base much of their behaviour.

Direct experience in the social learning approach is also considered to influence aggressive

behaviour styles. The formulation of suitable behaviour patterns is developed from

observing the effects of one’s own actions (Bandura, 1983). Such reinforcement appears to

act as an informative and motivational mechanism rather than as a mechanical response

shaper.

Overview of theories of aggression

The various theories of aggression differ in the types of behaviour which they include under

the heading of aggressive behaviour. They also differ in the aspects they emphasise in

terms of biological, motivational and social factors. However, generally they assume that

human aggression is caused by the combined result of biological factors (genetic inheritance

and evolutionary processes) and experience (learning through exposure to environmental

factors). The significance attributed to each of these factors and the process by which they

influence behaviour depends on the approach being examined. The forces postulated to

determine the occurrence ok aggressive behaviour also differ according to the theory being

examined. The motivation of humans deliberately to engage in aggressive activity has been

hypothesised by biological theories to be driven by innate forces of which the individual is

not necessarily aware. However, other theories place emphasis on external conditions

(such as cultural forces) as motivating factors. Therefore, the motives of individuals have

been seen variously as being conscious or unconscious, compelled by drives and instincts,

or determined by incentives, goals and values (Cofer and Appley, 1964).

The extent to which differing personality types influence the occurrence of aggressive

behaviour is not really known. The opinions expressed by researchers will very much

depend upon their orientation toward the causes and development of aggressiveness. The

emphasis placed on innate factors and/or social forces in the development of personality will

also be determined by the personal orientation of the researcher. However, whatever the

orientation adopted by researchers, it is difficult to relate aggression to personality as at

present it does not appear possible to identify the aggressive individual on the basis of any

single cluster of so called aggressive personality traits (Feshbach, 1970, cited in Johnson,

1972). Much of the literature on aggressive behaviour in driving relates to attempts to

associate personality characteristics of individuals with the frequency of occurrence of

crashes or traffic violations. Crashes and violations are thus regarded as being the

behavioural indicators of the occurrence of aggression and, as such, indicators of the

individual’s propensity for aggressive behaviour.

Defining aggression

In spite of a range of approaches to the study of aggressive behaviour in humans, it would

appear that, with only few exceptions, a general definition of aggression has been agreed

upon in the literature. This general definition would define as aggression any behaviour

directed at causing physical or mental injury. Behaviour not directed at inflicting harm is

excluded from this definition.

Given the diversity of approaches to the study of aggression, and the wide variety of

contexts to which it has been applied, an operational definition of aggression in driving

needs to be considered. Aggression can generally be defined as behaviour which results in

personal harm and/or physical injury. This personal harm may be physical or emotional (for

example, verbal abuse) (Bandura, 1983). However, not all acts which result in some form of

injury can be labelled aggressive. The intent of the perpetrator is central in determining

16

STAYSAFE 58

whether a given act was aggressive or not. However, whether an act will be classified as

aggressive depends on subjective judgements of intention and causality (Bandura, 1983) by

observers. Furthermore, the same injurious act may be viewed differently depending upon

the sex, age, attractiveness, status, background, etc. of the perpetrator (Bandura, 1983).

Bandura reports that people are more disposed to judge harmful acts as unintentional if the

perpetrator is favoured than if he or she were not favoured. This problem in part, has lead

Buss (1961) to propose that the concept of intent is awkward and unnecessary in the

definition of aggression. As Buss points out, intent is a private event which the individual

may or may not be able to express verbally. This approach leads to obvious problems ?

how can injuries caused accidentally by a second party be equated with deliberate cause of

injury?

To some extent, the definition of aggression used in this literature review must be

determined by the way in which the concept has been employed in the literature on road

user aggression. The literature on aggression in driving has covered a broad area of

research from investigations of homicide and suicide by motor vehicle to relatively common

aggressive acts such as risk taking (for example, speeding). For the purposes of this

literature review, the concept of intent is useful in discriminating between driving acts where

the intent was to cause harm and other driving aggressive acts which reveal a willingness to

chance dangerous consequences in order to fulfil the driver’s motives. This latter situation

necessarily encompasses behaviour in which the driver may not intend to harm other road

users or himself and may not be aware that significant risk is involved. However, due to the

involvement of other factors, the driver performs in a manner which endangers other road

users. Such behaviour would be aggressive in appearance, however, the intent of the driver

may not be readily definable. Neither of these two definitions makes any assumptions

regarding the awareness of the individual of his or her motivation or the basic nature of the

aggressive response. Thus, in terms of the definition of aggression in driving it is possible to

distinguish a range of behaviours that may be described as aggressive.

We would therefore, like to view the range of possible aggressive behaviours from extreme

forms of aggression in which the intent to cause harm is fairly explicit to less extreme forms

of aggression in which other motives (not necessarily including intent to cause harm)

influence the road user to drive aggressively and therefore dangerously. We would therefore

propose two definitions of aggression in driving. The first (strong) definition of aggression in

driving encompasses more extreme forms of aggression, including any behaviour the intent

of which was to cause physical and/or psychological harm or damage to oneself, other road

users, or property. Examples of such behaviour include wilful, malicious acts such as

assault (psychological or physical) of other road users, homicide, or suicide. The second

definition of aggression generally involves less extreme behaviours and encompasses both

actual aggressive behaviour and aggressive-looking driving behaviour. Here Berkowitz’s

(1981) concept of instrumental aggression is useful. The primary goal of the individual’s

behaviour in this situation is not the injury of a victim, but some unknown factor (motive)

beyond this. These motives are commonly quoted in the literature. A wide range of motives

which may be conscious or unconscious have been postulated including; faster speed,

arriving sooner, thrills, release of emotional tension, bad temper. While the intent of the

driver is not necessarily to cause harm, the behaviour reveals the individual’s willingness to

risk hazardous outcomes. This willingness may be due to any number of conscious or

unconscious motives, or may in fact communicate a lack of awareness of current road

dangers.

17

STAYSAFE 58

THE ISSUE OF AGGRESSION IN DRIVING

What is aggressive driving?

Parry (1968) argues that, it may be accepted that some accidents are precipitated by

‘chance situations’ difficult even for the experienced motorist to foresee. In such a context

the term ‘accident’ carries the proper and accurate meaning. However, it would be totally

incorrect to suggest (as some do) that all accidents are the result of chance situations, fate,

or some such random occurrence, and therefore are bound to happen (p. 4).

While such a statement can be challenged, this quote underlies the position that individual

characteristics contribute significantly to crashes. Parry goes on to suggest that many of

these types of crashes could be avoided but for the frame of mind and the personality of the

driver involved. A dominant theme of many studies investigating the causes of motor vehicle

crashes, although not so much in recent years, has been the expression by drivers of

aggressive patterns of behaviour. In terms of the definition of aggression in driving it is

possible to distinguish a range of behaviours that may be described as aggressive.

As discussed earlier, a strong definition of aggressive driving would be driving with the intent

to cause harm to other road users, to oneself or to property. Examples of such behaviour

are assault (psychological or physical) of other road users, homicide, or suicide. It would

appear unlikely that the majority of road traffic crashes reported in the literature are the result

of attempted suicide, homicide or assault. Overt aggression and irresponsibility would

appear to cause only a small number of crashes (Road accidents and driving behaviour,

1978). This is a view supported by police assessments of the situation (Road accidents and

driving behaviour, 1978). It is important to differentiate between the aggressive types of

behaviour encompassed in the extreme definition of aggression and the less extreme

aggressive or aggressive-looking behaviour encompassed by the second definition. This

second type of aggressive driving behaviour has been called less extreme in order to

differentiate it from acts of murder or suicide. Much of the literature to be discussed later

deals with crash repeaters whom research has attempted to distinguish from the normal

driving population on a number of personality dimensions

? notably aggressive traits.

However, subjective experience would also indicate that even members of the ‘normal’

driving population exhibit aggressive driving behaviour relatively frequently. Members of the

‘normal’ driving population may also become aggressive when faced with difficult driving

situations such as slow moving traffic. In this view, aggressive-looking driving behaviour

(risk taking) is also considered. The driver in this situation does not have any conscious

intent to harm other road users but his or her exhibition of deviant behaviour puts other road

users at risk. The next chapters will consider the motives of drivers for driving behaviour in

addition to investigating the personality characteristics of drivers with multiple crashes or

traffic violations.

It is likely that the majority of people who drive dangerously do not do so through an impulse

either for self destruction or to injure others. Some of the literature to be discussed focuses

on the role of driving as defined by the extreme definition (suicide, homicide or assault).

Most of the literature to be considered in this review looks at the less extreme end of the

aggressive driving spectrum, examining the motivational components of road user

behaviour, their underlying characteristics, expression and control.

The motives of drivers

The behaviour of the road user (of which aggression is one aspect) needs to be considered

within the framework of the social and psychological context in which it occurs. As Wilde

18

STAYSAFE 58

(1976) remarks, it is probably difficult to find examples of road user behaviour completely

free from some form of social influence—these being social customs, habits, values and

expectations. Naatanen and Summala (1976) put forward the proposition that it may be

more fruitful to investigate the behaviour of drivers within the context of their motivation to

behave in a particular way. They argue that with regard to safe driving behaviour, the critical

determinants of the road user’s behaviour are motivational in nature. Clifford and Marjoram

(1978) claim that the embracing of a more responsible attitude to driving by road users is a

fundamental pre-requisite to obtain substantial and permanent improvement in road safety.

The driver needs also to be regarded as a creator of traffic situations, and not just as a

responding agent. The literature to be considered in this review testifies to the position

expressed by Naatanen and Summala that the driver does not always (naturally) give his or

her best in order to avoid crashes. In this view, the road user’s behaviour is seen as

reflecting a balance between personal motives

(thrills, speed, headway etc.) and the

subjective risk of being involved in a motor vehicle crash.

In general, the principal motives accepted for drivers driving have been commonly presumed

to be travelling to a given destination, and arriving safely (Naatanen and Summala, 1976).

Naatanen and Summala also stress the wide variety of other kinds of motives individual road

users might have. All of which may result in expressions of aggressive behaviour. These

motives have been termed the ‘extra motives’ of the driver. The importance of these ‘extra

motives’ in the determination of driver behaviour has not been widely studied (Naatanen and

Summala, 1976). The ‘extra motives’ of drivers have been termed ‘excitatory’ in order to

contrast them with ‘inhibitory’ motives the most important of which is the subjective risk of

crash involvement. Naatanen and Summala argue that, in general, there is an absence of

subjective risk on the part of the driver.

In the view of Naatanen and Summala,

“Man satisfies his needs everywhere that is possible. If (and when) road traffic

affords opportunities for this in abundance and the absence of perceived risk

presents him with plenty of subjective freedom of choice, then why not take

advantage of the opportunity” (Naatanen and Summala, 1976, p. 79).

The lack of subjective risk and the extra motives of road users are considered to be among

the major causes of the failure of many countermeasures designed to influence driver

attitudes (Naatanen and Summala, 1976).

Naatanen and Summala’s concept of the ‘extra’ motives of drivers is important when

studying driving behaviour as it allows us to consider not only the sources of possible

aggressive behaviour but also other risky driving acts and the behaviour (motives) of drivers

not only among so called ‘high risk’ driver groups, but also amongst the general driving

population. However, the intent of the driver may be difficult if not impossible to determine.

The concept of risk taking and aggression in driving are closely associated. The next

sections will investigate Naatanen and Summala’s concept of ‘extra motives’ and the road

user’s feelings of subjective risk of being involved in a crash and the source of his or her

subsequent risk taking behaviour in the light of the relevant literature. Any of these motives

may give rise to aggressive or aggressive-looking driver behaviour, which may subsequently

put other road users at risk.

Naatanen and Summala’s (1976) broad classification of the kinds of the possible ‘extra’

motives drivers is as follows:

(a) Aims of the road user for the trip he or she is taking. For example, goals

arising from a desire to get to point B with haste, competition between drivers,

timetable pressures, obtaining a better position in the traffic flow. Driving to attain

these goals may result in increased risk taking behaviour.

19

STAYSAFE 58

(b) Behavioural models. Traffic behaviour is influenced by the driving norms of

the individual’s peer group. Klein (1972) remarks that for many adolescents

knowledge about, ingenuity in modifying and skill in driving motor vehicles may

represent the only means of achieving status with peers. A motor vehicle may be

used as a means of asserting manhood for some young male drivers (Robinson,

1972, cited in Henderson, 1972). Naatanen and Summala comment that some

individuals tend to be very assertive and competitive drivers, believing such

behaviour to be a sign of driving skill. Competitiveness in driving could

conceivably be ascribed to aggressiveness (Naatanen and Summala, 1976).

Adolescents in particular may be attracted to high powered vehicles.

Advertisements for high powered cars or sports cars imply symbolic autonomy

and power (Klein, 1972). The message of advertising is that of speed and

acceleration. This type of advertising to sell vehicles while being successful,

serves only to reinforce the extra motives of the driver. The example set by other

road users may also influence behaviour. Lefkowitz, Blake and Mouton (1955,

cited in Naatanen and Summala, 1976) observed that pedestrians more often

crossed at red traffic lights when an experimenter’s model was present who

violated the rule, than if the model was not present.

(c) The driver may feel the need to prove his or her skill as a driver. Naatanen

and Summala argue that consciously or unconsciously people generally seem to

regard driving speed and overtaking ability as a measure of driving skill. They

also argue that this conception is maintained by motoring advertising, magazines

and races.

(d) Hedonistic objectives. The excitement of driving especially at speed are also

cited by Naatanen and Summala as extra motives. Black (1966) in a study

comparing the responses of drivers to aspects of driving such as safety in the

hypnotised and unhypnotised states observed that drivers while under hypnosis

stressed the freedom of owning a motor vehicle. To quote one subject ‘the

pleasure comes from moving. .. I feel free...I’m driving fast and enjoying what that

means to me’ (p. 66). Parry (1968) reports one subject responded in a sentence

completion task to the phrase ‘to take a risk when driving...is exhilarating’ (p. 38).

Naatanen and Summala (1976) make the point that the desire to travel at speed

(which is expressed not only in fast car driving but also in our-desire to play on

roller coasters and so on) may be seen as a reduction in drive or tension from a

biological point of view. Or for the experience of a new sensation. However, it

may also relate to Klein’s conception that risk taking and aggressiveness are

attributes valued by our society and therefore instilled in members. In this view

the desire to drive fast may be accounted for in social learning theory.

(e)

Emotions. Aggressive emotions may be aroused by factors within the

driving situation itself. Whitlock

(1971) points to the generally frustrating

nature of driving which may be continually constrained by other traffic. Turner,

Layton and Simons (1975) present evidence suggesting that some drivers

become angry and frustrated by the behaviour of other drivers. Parry’s

anecdotal reports of drivers’ responses indicate that hand gestures, swearing,

light flashing and facial expressions are used by drivers in response to other

drivers who irritate them. A large number of Parry’s drivers were driven to

actually chasing and confronting (often fighting with) the drivers who had

irritated them. However such drivers represented the extreme end of a

spectrum of aggressive behaviour which may occur in response to frustration.

20

STAYSAFE 58

Increased risk taking behaviour was reported by Ebbesen and Haney (1973)

who found that drivers accepted shorter gaps in traffic flow when turning left at

a T-intersection after waiting for vehicles in front to turn than when the driver

had been in the first position immediately. This behaviour was explained in

terms of frustration generated as a result of having to wait in a queue.

‘All that

is required to work off a cheerful mood...is a slow-moving truck that cannot be

overtaken on a winding stretch for several kilometres’

(Naatanen and

Summala, 1976. p. 42). The stronger the emotions generated by the given

situation, the greater will the danger be that emotions will make the driving

decisions and not the traffic situation

(Naatanen and Summala,

1976).

Subsequent behaviour may result in increased risk of crashes which is

indicative that some drivers become aggressive when frustrated. The

frustration leads to aggression hypothesis would predict that the arousal of

emotions in response to frustration may lead to attempts to decrease the

frustrating nature as soon as possible. For example, the hurried driver may

overtake with only narrow margins. Whitlock (1971) in trying to make sense of

aggressive behaviour by ‘normal’ drivers, has suggested that the ‘combative’

attitude which arises in difficult driving situations, may have its foundations in

the ethological view of territorial rights. That is, drivers become aggressive in

defence of their perceived territorial rights. However, both the above views

must be considered purely speculative as no firm evidence for either exists,

particularly in terms of driving behaviour.

Emotions may also be stirred up by factors external to the traffic situation.

Selzer, Rogers and Kern (1968) report that 20 percent of the drivers they

investigated who had been involved in fatal crashes had been upset about

some incident in the last six hours of their lives. This was also indicated by

Holt (1982), Selzer (1969) and Selzer and Vinokur (1974) who reported that

emotional crises in the form of quarrels with significant others contribute to an

increase in crash and violation rates. The road user who drives when upset or

angry may be doing so to blow off emotional steam (Naatanen and Summala,

1976). Such behaviour may be overtly aggressive behaviour (such as suicide

or murder) or increased risk taking (such as speeding).

(f) Risk taking. Risk taking in driving is the expression of an increased

willingness to take chances when driving and include behaviours engaged in

purely for the enjoyment of driving dangerously (risk taking for the sake of risk

taking). An English study (Quimby and Watts, 1981) of driver attitudes to

safety

(for example, speeding, drink driving legislation, seatbelt usage)

revealed that drivers sometimes knowingly engaged in dangerous behaviour,

although attitudes toward this type of behaviour improved with age. An

American study (Schuman, Pelz, Ehrlich and Selzer, 1967) reported that one

half of the male drivers they studied in the 16 to 18 age bracket reported

taking part in ‘daredevil’ practices in the previous month. These included

racing and taking dares. Approximately 30 percent of the 16 to 18 year old

group also reported that they often took chances with friends in cars. The

incidence of the above types of behaviour decreased with age although 20

percent of the 23 to 24 age bracket reported daredevil driving and 10 percent

reported that they took chances when driving. Pelz and Schuman (1968)

reported that two in five of the young drivers they interviewed who were crash

and violation repeaters said that they spent at least ten hours a week in motor

vehicles for fun. Only one in five of the safe drivers reported this type of

behaviour.

21

STAYSAFE 58

This type of driver risk taking behaviour in which risks are taken for fun or

thrills most certainly has the appearance of aggressive driving. The extent of

the risk incurred and the consequences will be determined by the extent to

which the individual is willing to put his or her safety and that of other road

users at risk. Klein

(1971) in discussing American society contends that

societal values place risk taking and aggressiveness high on the list of socially

desirable attributes. Klein proposes that Americans do not want as safe

conditions as could be achieved by the implementation of current technical

knowledge. Klein argued that the values taught by schools and the mass

media reinforce an outdated view of America as a frontier society. These

values reflect competitiveness, individual initiative, control over one’s

environment, masculinity (which implies toughness and aggression), challenge

and excitement, and that social rewards can be best achieved through

individual achievement rather than cooperative effort. It is likely that these

values are also reflected in Australian society. Hampson (1984) discussing

the Australian situation comments that society encourages risk taking and

competitiveness which is reflected in our driving behaviour. Klein goes on to

say that industrialised society minimises risk taking and concentrates decision

making into fewer and fewer hands. As a consequence smaller numbers of

people can gain feelings of control, individual achievement or a sense of

power from their work. In addition, increasing affluence and decreasing work

schedules provide people with even greater opportunity for risk taking. In

terms of road users, Klein (1971) argues that in a society with these values,

drivers, and young drivers in particular, find little manifestation of them in their

work activities, but can find them in driving activities. Tillman and Hobbs

(1949) make the comment that ‘men drive as they live’. However, Shaw (1965,

cited in Parry 1968) qualifies this comment when she says that people may

also ‘drive as they would like to live’. This view may be more appropriate for

Klein’s argument. It cannot be claimed that all young drivers represent a

driving risk because of the motives for risky driving outlined above. Shaw and

Sichel

(1971) propose that well integrated people will not change their

behaviour when they sit behind the wheel of a motor vehicle (as proposed by

Parry). However, a poorly integrated person, who could possibly find driving

an outlet for feelings of frustration, conflict and aggression may well undergo a

change in behaviour when driving.

The issue of risk taking is highly complex and continues to be the subject of

controversy, particularly with regard to questions of drivers’ basic motivations

for risk taking behaviour. Central to the issue of driver risk taking behaviour is

the concept of awareness of risk. Do drivers (adolescents in particular)

knowingly take risks while driving? The papers presented above would

indicate that some drivers do. However, other analyses of driver risk taking

behaviour, while not denying that some drivers do knowingly take risks, argue

that other drivers are generally not aware of many of the risks they are taking

while driving.

The subjective risk of crash involvement

Risk assessment:

The difficulty with attempting to measure drivers’ subjective feeling of risk is that it cannot be

measured directly. Such events are internal and not necessarily available for conscious

examination by the individual or by others. Two approaches to the concept of subjective risk

are outlined below. Both of these approaches have implications for the prevention and

control of aggression in driving, and represent different approaches to solving the problem.

22

STAYSAFE 58

The first of these is the concept of risk homeostasis which argues that road users always

operate at the maximum level of risk that they are prepared to accept. This theory assumes

that the driver is aware and desires the level of risk he or she is taking. The other view is

that in everyday driving situations road users do not experience feelings of subjective risk,

but operate as though they were in a totally safe environment. In this situation, the

aggressive driver may not be aware that his or her driving represents a high crash risk

whereas risk homeostasis theory indicates that the aggressive driver is prepared to put him

or herself into high risk situations.

The concept of risk homeostasis:

The validity of the assumptions underlying the risk homeostasis concept has profound

implications for the prediction and control of the occurrence of crashes which are seemingly

the result of aggressive behaviour. The concept that road users attempt to maintain a

consistent level of risk has been controversial because of the implications it holds for the

effectiveness of safety countermeasures. The theory has been called danger compensation

(O’Neil], 1978, Peltzman, 1975) and more recently risk compensation (Wilde, 1982a). The

theory of risk homeostasis developed by Wilde from risk compensation has been the focus

of attention in the last few years.

The basis of compensation theory is the concept of utility. That is, the idea that the

individual, will always act to maximise the expected gains for a given activity. Safety is

treated as one of a number of goods (Evans, 1985). Other utility gains (possibly resulting in

aggressive behaviour) may be driving faster, getting to work faster and more thrills. In

driving, the individual is expected to act to ‘optimally adjust his behaviour to maximise his

expected gain in the face of a change in the driving environment’ (O’Neil], 1978, p. 158).

The users thought to balance the risks involved in having a crash with the benefits of using

some of the margin provided by the safety measure to fulfil his or her other motives (such as

driving faster). Aggressive driving may in these circumstances be a reflection of the drivers’

desire to maximise his or her utilities, whatever they may be. In this situation risk may be

defined as, ‘the selection of one alternative or course of action from among many in which

the consequences of that choice could leave the individual in a worse position than if he had

selected otherwise or not selected at all’ (Bem, 1980, p. 2). In addition, risk taking relates

only to the subjective aspects of risk. Risk taking as an intentional act can only take place if

the person involved believes danger to exist (Taylor, 1976).

The type and size of the various tradeoffs made by drivers will depend on the individual.

Peltzman

(1975) has chosen to call these other driving goals, driving intensity. By

increasing safety through the use of countermeasures, we are in effect decreasing the risk

price attached to driving intensity. For example, by installing better braking systems in cars,

we are encouraging the driver to engage in behaviour that he or she otherwise might not

have considered. Utility theory can be used to predict that the crash rate will remain

unchanged (Evans, 1985). In risk homeostasis theory, the human is seen as acting in a way

that may be understood as a homeostatically controlled regulation process.

‘At any moment

of time the instantaneously experienced level of risk is compared with the level of risk the

individual wishes to take and decisions-to alter ongoing behaviour will be made whenever

these two levels are discrepant’ (Wilde, 1982a, p. 20). Safety measures in general, while

providing the user with greater opportunity for safety, do not affect the driver’s motivation to

be safe (Wilde, 1982a). The user will recognise either consciously or unconsciously the

safety benefit provided by a device and will alter his or her behaviour accordingly. The level

of risk that the individual driver is prepared to accept is the only factor that will influence

driver risk taking behaviour in the long term (Wilde, 1982a). The level of risk accepted by

the driver is determined by cognitive and motivational states. These are in turn influenced

by other underlying variables such as, long term factors (for example, cultural values), trip

specific variables (for example, fatigue, mood) and momentary fluctuations (for example,

frustration with other drivers or passengers, day dreaming). The implications for attempts to

23

STAYSAFE 58

prevent aggressive driving are extremely important. The risk homeostasis model would

predict that individuals who drive aggressively do so because they are operating at the level

of risk they are prepared to accept.

A strong empirical base for this theory has yet to be established. While a great deal has

been written concerning the theory of risk homeostasis, very few firm conclusions have been

drawn. A number of methodological problems exist with studies investigating the validity of

risk homeostasis such as lack of external controls in before-after studies, or the presence of

uncontrolled variables in studies of risk taking.

Studies investigating risk homeostasis have obtained contradictory results, although the

majority of the literature does not appear to support the concept. Studies by Adams, 1981,

Hurst, 1979 and Peltzman, 1975 have found an increase in deaths with the implementation

of seat belt legislation. This evidence has been interpreted as supporting the risk

homeostasis theory. Conybeare (1980) although reporting a decrease in occupant fatalities,

also reported an increase in the number of nonoccupant deaths. However, McKenna (1985)

disputes the conclusion that Conybeare’s findings supports risk homeostasis theory.

Although a significant decrease was observed in the number of occupant fatalities, the

increase in non-occupant fatalities was not significant. Instead of a net decrease in safety, a

net increase was observed. Other studies have also failed to find evidence of risk

homeostasis. Hakkert, Zaidel and Sarelle (1980) and Robertson (1977a, 1981) report a

decrease in the number of fatal crashes coinciding with the introduction of safety legislation.

They also did not report any increases in the rate of non-occupant fatalities as is predicted

by the shift in risk hypothesis. In Australia, Cowley and Cameron (1976) and Foldvary and

Lane (1974) estimated that the saving in lives was somewhere in the range of 10 to 20

percent below the pre-legislation trend. Muller (1980) and Watson, Zador and Wilks (1980)

report that the repeal of motorcycle helmet laws led to an observed drop in helmet use of

approximately 40 to 50 percent. Both studies concluded that as a result of the repeal of the

laws, there was an increase in the number of fatalities. This was somewhere in the

magnitude of 38 percent (Watson et al, 1980).

Two of the major studies which have been cited as evidence for risk homeostasis theory

have been severely criticised. Peltzman (1975) regressed traffic death rates on a set of

variables which he had postulated would-influence a driver’s demand for risk taking

behaviour in the period 1945-1966 (after which time there was a great increase in the

enactment of safety regulations). These factors were; the (economic) cost to the driver of

having a crash, increase in income, time related income (for example, taxi drivers), level of

alcohol in the blood, age the driver, the speed at which the driver is travelling.

It was predicted that there would be a 10 to 25 percent decrease in the occupant fatality rate

and a 7 to 20 percent decrease in the total vehicle fatality rate (Peltzman, 1975). The aim of

Peltzman’s study was to investigate any changes in the fatality rate for the pre-regulatory

period compared with the post-regulatory period. Peltzman concluded that there had been

no decrease in the fatality rate in the post-regulatory period.

Peltzman’s methodology has been severely criticised (Joksch, 197G, Lindgren and Stuart,

1978, Robertson, 1977b) on a number of points. It is argued that the multiple regression

model used by Peltzman did not predict the fatality rate accurately for the period prior to

regulation. He did not separate the deaths which involved cars subject to the regulations

from deaths involving cars not subject to the regulations. Vehicles fitted with seat belts in

the year following the passing of seat belt laws were found to have a lower casualty rate

when compared with pre-regulation vehicles. Joksch (1976) argues that the fatality rate

contradicted published information concerning their crash involvement. When applied to the

Swedish situation, the type of analysis used by Peltzman revealed a significant decrease in

the fatality rate for car occupants (Lindgren and Stuart, 1980).

24

STAYSAFE 58

Adams (1981) attempted to compare the crash rate of 13 countries with mandatory seat belt

regulations with four countries without such legislation. The total road fatalities of all the

countries were converted to indices with 1973 (the year of the oil crisis) set at 100. Indices

containing the average indices of the countries with laws were obtained and compared

against the average indices of the countries without laws. The crash fatality index of

countries with mandatory seatbelt laws was found to drop by 17 percent in the post-

regulatory period. However, the index for non-law countries dropped by 25 percent.

A number of criticisms have been levelled at the Adams study. It is argued that only

occupants affected by seatbelt legislation should have been used and that a distinction

should have been made between occupant fatalities and non-occupant fatalities

(motorcyclists, pedestrians etc.). Only those road users affected by the legislation should be

expected to show any signs of compensation (Matthews, cited in Hamer, 1981, Tingvall,

1982). The seat belt wearing figures used by Adams were clearly underestimated, a fact

which calls into question the validity of his results. Tingvall (1982) divided drivers according

to seatbelt usage. A clear distinction was made between those drivers who wore seat belts

before and after the law was enacted, those belted after the law but unbelted previously, and

those drivers unbelted both before and after the law was introduced. Drivers unbelted

before and after the law tend to belong to high risk groups (young males, drunk drivers).

Tingvall found no evidence for an increase in the fatality rate in the year following the

enactment of seat belt legislation. A relevant point may be that in 1975 in Sweden, 44.7

percent of all front seat passengers killed were not wearing their seatbelts.

Evans and Wasielewski (1982a, 1982b) used vehicle headway as a measure of driver risk

taking behaviour. The rationale behind this study was that short headways (those less than

one second) were indicative of a willingness to take greater risk than the longer headway

used (those greater than or equal to one second). This assumption appears to be borne out

by the fact that a significant relationship was found between crash involvement and driver

risk taking behaviour. However, in an investigation of the effect of seatbelts on risk taking in

two jurisdictions (Ontario and Michigan) one of which had mandatory seatbelt laws and the

other that did not, Evans, Wasielewski and von Buseck

(1982) found no relationship

between driver risk taking and the wearing of seatbelts. In fact, the drivers wearing their

seatbelts (in both cities) were more likely to drive with longer headways than those without

seatbelts. Evans et al concluded that there was no evidence to support the concept of

compensation, but nor was there any directly to refute it.

Rumar, Berggrund, Jernberg and Ytterbom (1976) measured possible driver risk taking

behaviour in relation to the use of studded tyres. The speeds, following distances, and the

presence or absence of studded tyres were checked on several thousand vehicles. Contrary

to the prediction of risk homeostasis, drivers did not totally offset the safety advantage

provided by the use of studded tyres. Furthermore, drivers with studded tyres on their

vehicles still drove with a greater safety margin than did drivers of vehicles with unstudded

tyres. Given the evidence (Tingvall, 1982) that drivers who do not wear seatbelts tend to

belong to high risk groups, (drivers more likely to take risks and be involved in crashes) it

may be that those drivers who do not choose to fit their cars with studded tyres are also

more likely to belong to the same type of high risk group. The presence or absence of risk

homeostasis cannot be measured by a comparison of these two groups.

A number of theoretical issues also present problems for the risk homeostasis theory.

Firstly, the model assumes that risk is the controlling factor in driver behaviour (Cole and

Withey, 1982, Slovic and Fischhoff, 1982). In doing so, other costs and benefits would not

be accounted for. There may also be a major difference in the influence of active safety

measures (a safety measure that directly changes the probability of crash involvement) and

passive safety measures (a safety measure that does not change likelihood of crash

25

STAYSAFE 58

involvement, but does reduce the severity of the crash when it occurs). The problem with

passive safety measures is that no direct compensatory mechanism exists (Slovic and

Fischhoff, 1982). It is not possible to drive in such a way that the safety advantage of a

padded dashboard is offset. With an improved braking system, it is possible to offset that

advantage directly, by braking later than if the system were not as good. This is particularly

important considering that most of the work in the area has involved detailed analysis of

crash statistics in relation to the introduction of seatbelt legislation. Devices designed to

reduce crash frequency have not always worked, but it is not necessarily true that this is the

case given safety devices aimed at reducing crash severity. Graham (1982) argues that

when the consequences of an act are improbable and are painful to imagine (such as a

severe car crash) an individual’s actions will not be altered by changes in the margin of

severity.

The concept of subjective risk would appear to be far more complex than the risk

homeostasis model would imply. The analysis of the problem of subjective risk is made

more difficult as there is no direct means to measure it. Nor, when such measures are made

can we be certain that the subject’s definition of risk is the same as that of the researcher.

People are often biased in their interpretation of risk (Slovic, Fischhoff and Lichtenstein,

1980, Tversky and Kahneman,

1974).

A number of the basic assumptions of risk

homeostasis are yet to be verified. Most importantly, these concern the ability of road users

to perceive risk accurately. The qualitative aspects of risk perception and effects of indirect

(passive) versus direct (active) safety measures require further investigation. In terms of

aggression in driving, the model implies that the road user is driving at the level of risk he or

she is prepared to accept.

Absence of subjective risk:

Naatanen and Summala (1974, 1976) and Summala (1986), advance the view that road

users for the most part do not experience feelings of subjective risk of being involved in

crash while on the road. First advanced by Naatanen and Summala in 1974, this view

postulated the existence of a subjective risk monitor which when activated generates varying

degrees of subjective risk

(or fear) depending on the amount and nature of the risk

experienced in the current or expected driving situation. Summala (1986) proposed a zero

risk theory of driver behaviour which postulates that drivers tend to adapt to the risks on the

road and that their motives drive them towards higher speeds and riskier driving habits.

The zero-risk theory in general describes any situation in which the driver maintains a given

adequate safety margin. Driving is seen as an habitual activity based on largely automatic

control of safety margins. The driver is not normally concerned with risks, but in most

situations knows what he or she must do in order to avoid the possibility of crashes. Instead

of regulating some kind of risk measure as in risk homeostasis theory, drivers control safety

margins around themselves.

‘A perceived or anticipated threat to this critical space triggers

the fight or flight response’ (Summala, 1986, p. 9). The subjective risk monitor is activated

and some kind of immediate escape response is elicited. Another response which Summala

(1986) has called the avoidance learning process affects future decision making and

behaviour. In the avoidance learning process, the experience of risk or fear is the primary

aversive stimulus.

‘The driver learns which cues anticipate this experience which is of

course closely related to objective hazards’ (Summala, 1986, p.10). The driver in general

tends to both escape and avoid such aversive experiences.

With increasing driving experience it is postulated that the driver acquires an internal

representation of the traffic system in addition to internal models of expectancies for specific

driving situations

(Summala, 1986). These expectancies are more perception-like and

deterministic than the real driving situation (Naatanen and Summala, 1976). As a result

there develops an inability on the part of the driver to take into account the small stochastic

fluctuations in traffic risks in addition to the disappearance of the drivers original fear

26

STAYSAFE 58

responses to many driving situations. As a consequence the driver’s subjective probability

of the outcomes of their behaviour are distorted, resulting in driving with too small safety

margins.

As with risk homeostasis theory, this theory has major implications for the approach taken to

the control of dangerous and aggressive driving. If the level of subjective risk is almost non-

existence, then the driver is able to satisfy any of the other motives he or she may desire to

see fulfilled (for example, thrills, fast driving—activities frequently labelled aggressive driving)

without the constraint of fear (feelings of risk). In support of this, Quimby and Watts (1981)

observed that road users who drove at inappropriate speeds resulting in greater risk taking

appeared to consider the risk to be quite low. Naatanen and Summala (1976) present a

number of claims as evidence for their argument. However, whether road users are actually

acting in these ways must still be considered open to debate.

In support of their argument, Naatanen and Summala argue that:

1. People do not seem to minimise their exposure to the road environment.

2. Many forms of behaviour on the road appear to indicate a lack of subjective risk.

3. Choice and maintenance of motor vehicles often reflect no concern for safety.

4. Many of those safety countermeasures which have been based on the premise that

drivers feel some subjective risk have failed.

5. The individual experience of road users does not seem to contain elements of the

subjective risk of crash occurrence.

Naatanen and Summala (1976) consider a number of factors to be responsible for reducing

the road user’s sense of the subjective risk of having an crash. Research into risk

perception has found that many people feel that although the risk of having a crash in

particular situations does exist, that it won’t happen to them

(Svenson, Fischhoff and

MacGregor, 1985). It appears that people learn of risks through their own everyday

experiences. These include personal experiences with crashes, close calls and those

incidents they see occurring or reported in the media. It is also known that drivers often

discuss traffic crashes and pay close attention to those reported in the media (Wilde and

Ackersviller, 1977, cited in Wilde, 1982b). When asked to rate the frequency of death of a

number of crash types in the United States, it was found that people generally knew which

events were most often fatal. However, they seriously misjudged the frequency of events

within that framework (Lichtenstein, Layman and Coombs, 1978, cited in Slovic et al], 1980).

Traffic crashes were among those factors generally overestimated.

In spite of this, there is evidence to support the notion that people do not feel that they

belong to the same population as drivers involved in crashes (Svenson, Fischhoff and

MacGregor, 1985). Goldstein (1964) argued that drivers thought that a small group of bad

drivers caused all the crashes on the roads. The above points are further supported by

evidence which suggests that most drivers feel that they are more skillful and less likely to

be involved in crashes than the average driver (Svenson et a], 1985). This has also been

reported by other researchers

(Preston and Harris,

1965).

Black

(1966) found that

hypnotised subjects were not concerned that there were dangers on the roads. They felt

skillful enough to deal with those dangers that did exist on the road. This is in contrast to the

opinions held by the subjects when not hypnotised, who felt that there was great danger to

be found on the road.

Zuercher, Sass, and Wiess (1971, cited in Naatanen and Summala, 1976) noted that crash-

involved drivers apportion their own driving skill a major share of credit for saving peoples’

lives in crashes. Grieg (1970, cited in Naatanen and Summala, 1976) remarks that this lack

of subjective risk may explain why fear-arousing campaigns to encourage drivers to drive

more carefully have failed. Drivers involved in risky traffic situations have also been known

27

STAYSAFE 58

to interpret these dangerous situations as being less dangerous or of slight risk (Naatanen

and Summala, 1976).

It would appear therefore, that while people overestimate the likelihood of crash involvement,

their behaviour implies that they rate the likelihood of car crash involvement as quite low

(Naatanen and Summala, 1976). Personal experience would indicate that the driving task

does not entail feelings of subjective risk until a situation arises that requires action to avoid

a collision. To quote McKenna (1982), ‘from the armchair there is a clear risk of crash

involvement, as the statistics demonstrate, but from the driver’s seat there appears to be

little experience of these statistics’ (p. 873).

The feeling of drivers that crashes do not happen to them is reinforced by the fact that

crashes are rare events when compared with the amount of time spent on the road. Drivers

may not feel the need to change their driving behaviour (dangerous or not) in view of their

experiences. The probability of being involved in a crash on any given trip is quite low

(Slovic, Fischhoff and Lichtenstein, 1978). Summala (1986) reports that a Finnish driver on

average would experience a fatal crash once in every 4.0 million kilometres. Each safe trip

reinforces the idea that seat belts are not needed. ‘The expense of buckling up has been

saved without bearing any costs’ (Slovic et a], 1978, p. 281). On the other hand, the driver

who does wear a seat belt is ‘punished’ for the effort, inconvenience and discomfort without

gaining any benefit.

Summala (1986) argues that, as beginners, most drivers at first feel uncertain or fearful in

many driving situations. However, with experience and continued increases in driving skill,

such feelings are extinguished. To a large extent, the driver as the operator of the vehicle

can determine the nature and degree of the difficulty of the traffic situations he or she should

cope with. As such, drivers have a subjective feeling of control when in the driving situation

(Naatanen and Summala, 1976). That such feelings may exist is evidenced in the work of

Bragg and Finn (1985) who found that subjects, while travelling as passengers in a vehicle,

perceived a greater risk than when they drove themselves. It is likely that the qualitative

feeling of control over unexpected situations is decreased for the person travelling as a

passenger. As an indication of this, LeGarde, Lubman and Hartnett (1971) propose that

non-drivers can more readily be persuaded to wear seatbelts than drivers, because the need

to wear seatbelts can be determined to some extent by the driver. Naatanen and Summala

(1976) generally conclude that the effect of being the driver of the vehicle is to reduce

relative risk. As drivers we may feel that we are better able to control any unforeseen events

than as passengers. This aspect of control is aided by drivers, because of their experiences

on the road, having certain expectancies about the traffic situation ahead.

Other factors also influence perception of risk by drivers. An example of this is lack of

supervision on the road. The risk of apprehension for traffic violations is relatively small

(Naatanen and Summala, 1976). Traffic violations come to be viewed as risk free, especially

if the legal norms for traffic regulations are not accepted. Distortion of perceptual and

cognitive processes or underestimation of the physical forces at work may also act to reduce

subjective feelings of risk (Naatanen and Summala, 1976).

In addition, other drivers can be seen displaying no concern for the possible risks involved in

dangerous driving, with the effect of influencing other drivers (Naatanen and Summala,

1976). The social learning theory of aggression would predict that drivers would imitate the

behaviour of others, in particular the behaviour of other individuals important to the driver.

Bandura (1983) has proposed three principal sources on which aggressive behaviour may

be modelled; the family, the subculture in which the family reside and the mass media. This

view supports that of Carlson and Klein (1970) who found a positive correlation between

fathers’ and sons’ convictions for traffic violations. Bandura (1983) and Eron and Huesmann

(1984) are now convinced on the basis of their evidence that television plays a significant

28

STAYSAFE 58

role in influencing aggressive behaviour patterns. There are important implications for the

way in which driving behaviours are modelled. Some aggressive drivers may in fact model

their own particular driving behaviours on the high speed car chases which frequent the

small screen, and in which the vehicle (or vehicles) is generally destroyed. ‘However, the

hero walks away unscathed.

The view can be supported that there exists a close link between the issues of aggression

and risk taking by drivers. This report has considered two quite different approaches to the

issue of risk taking by drivers, the controversial theory of risk homeostasis and the zero-risk

hypothesis’. Further research into the role of the motivational determinants of driver risk

taking behaviour and methods of risk assessment by drivers is required.

Other factors influencing aggressive behaviour

A number of different authors have investigated the interrelationship between the occurrence

of violent and aggressive behaviour and other internal

(psychological or physiological)

factors and external (environmental) factors. The majority of this review has and will be

considering the role of psychological and sociological factors governing aggressive

behaviour amongst road users. The literature to be considered in this section will consider

factors other than these (for example, organic brain disease, alcohol, marijuana, ambient

temperature, noise) which may modify the expression of aggression in driving. The literature

on the general effects of these factors is relatively large. However, very little has been

conducted in relation to road users. Most of the studies have reported that the expression of

aggression is influenced by environmental stressors such as noise (Mueller, 1983), ambient

temperature (Bell and Baron, 1981), the consumption of alcohol (Taylor and Leonard, 1983),

and brain pathology (Moyer, 1981).

Stress

A number of authors have reported that stressful events may be related to the occurrence of

traffic crashes. McMurray (1970) reports that during the six months before and after divorce,

drivers in her study had a significantly higher crash and violation rate than the general

population. The types of violations more often found at these times included speeding,

failure to yield, and close following. Holt (1982) , Selzer (1969) and Selzer, Roger and Kern

(1965) reported that social stressors in the form of personal crises and quarrels with

significant others contribute to an increase in crash and violation rates. Hampson (1984)

reports three in-depth studies of crashes (Mclean, 1981, Sabey and Staughton, 1975 and

Treat,

1980) that identified emotional stress as a contributing factor in crashes. The

percentage contribution of emotional stress reported by each of these studies was 3.2

percent, 1 percent and 2.1 percent respectively. Selzer and Vinokur (1974) argue that life

change and current subjective stress may be more important in the occurrence of road traffic

crashes than personality or social factors. Stress may act in a number of different ways

such as increasing aggression, or causing distraction. There is some implication in these

studies that emotional stress may influence aggressive behaviour, possibly by increasing

risk taking, bad temper, or as Macdonald (1964) recorded, triggering suicide attempts.

There is speculation with regard to the reasons why stress may be related to crashes.

Increased risk taking while under stress has been suggested (Valentine, Williams and

Young, 1977). Another suggestion relates to the discharge of emotion when under stress

which result in crashes (Viney, cited in Valentine et a], 1977). This is similar to the concept

of discharging of tension postulated by a number of authors to relate to causes of crashes.

Drivers with low tension tolerance were postulated to use their vehicles to release tension

(Schuman, Pelz1 Ehrlich and Selzer, 1967). It appears that risk taking and aggressive

behaviour may be influenced by some stressful events, however, the exact relationship has

not been determined. Hampson (1984) reports that the exact relationship may be difficult to

29

STAYSAFE 58

determine, given the possible variation in definitions and "the indirect relationship between

emotional stress and immediate human actions" (p. 15).

Alcohol

While a complete review lies outside the scope of this study, a number of authors have also

suggested that alcohol in addition to psychomotor impairment (impaired motor skills, vision,

reaction time), has the effect of modifying the expression of the personality (Goffioul, 1971)

or releasing aggressive personality traits (Payne and Selzer 1962). Yates, Meller and

Troughton (1987) regard acts of aggression to be a major behavioural complication of

alcoholism. They comment that alcohol seems to precipitate violence in some alcoholics.

Yates et a] (1987) also report on the antisocial personality disorder which is frequently

associated with alcoholism. The antisocial alcoholics in this study were more likely to be

involved in motor vehicle crashes, fights, marital disputes and suicide attempts than were

nonalcoholic patients with antisocial personality disorder.

Mitchell (1985) maintains that the opinion that alcohol consumption impairs judgement and

increases risk taking behaviour is controversial and has been since the 1950's. The early

studies which popularised the concept actually measured subjective evaluation of

performance under intoxication. Mitchell argues that experimental results have been

conflicting and that studies have shown that individual differences in the response to alcohol

are quite large. Wallgren and Barry (1970, cited in Barry, 1973) have argued that these

differences are attributable to different motivational and emotional changes caused by

alcohol. Barry (1973) has also reported that according to some atypical reports, alcohol

increases aggressive and nervous moods. More often however, laboratory experiments on

humans have shown little evidence for an increase in aggressive behaviour (Barry, 1973).

Barry reports that studies of self rated moods have often reported a decrease rather than an

increase in aggression. In conclusion, Barry argues that alcohol can have a sedative and a

disinhibitory effect. The sedative effect will cause inattention and sleep, whereas the

stimulating, disinhibitory effect (which relates to aggressiveness) can increase driver risk

taking behaviour

(characterised by impulsive actions) in the form of self-destructive

behaviour, increased assertiveness, dissociation from sober driving habits and impaired self

criticism (resulting in impaired risk estimation).

This short examination of the literature suggests that there is some relationship between

alcohol use and risk taking in driving although it has not been firmly established. Simpson

and Warren (1981) argue that the exact causal link between alcohol and crashes can only

be inferred from experimental studies. Donovan, Marlatt and Salzburg (1983) in a review

article concluded that alcohol serves to increase levels of covert hostility and overt

aggression which may be translated into driving-related aggression, speeding, risk taking

and sensation-seeking behaviour. However, while violence and aggression would appear to

be characteristic of at least some alcoholics, not all alcoholics are aggressive or have

crashes while intoxicated (Yates et al, 1987). The behavioural problems associated with

alcohol and driving may be the direct result of alcohol and or the result of a more basic

problem that has also contributed to the individual’s difficulties with alcohol.

Other drugs

The role of drugs other than alcohol in crash causation is receiving increased attention.

Brahams (1987) in an article on medicine and the law comments that drugs intended to calm

and sedate may produce unexpected aggression or lessening of control. However, the

extent to which this view can be accepted is uncertain. Linnoila and Seppala (1985) argue

that the effect of antidepressants on driving is unknown, although clinical studies indicate

that some impairment of skills occurs. However, they also found that antidepressants may

have beneficial effects. Sharma (1976) makes the comment that barbiturate intoxication is of

ten accompanied by aggressive behaviour and lack of emotional control.

30

STAYSAFE 58

Seppala, Linnoila and Mattila (1979) report that cannabis may impair driving to a dangerous

degree. While Moskowitz (1976) recognises that marijuana use produces impairment in

driving skills, he argues that there appears to be no evidence that driver risk taking is

affected. In fact, he found that subjects were less willing to take risks when under the

influence of marijuana. Subjective reports indicate that marijuana appears to have a

sedating rather than stimulating effect (Le Dain Commission, 1972, cited in Moskowitz,

1976). In a study by Pliner, Cappell and Miles (1972, cited in Moskowitz, 1976) subjects

under the influence of marijuana were rated as being less aggressive. This conclusion is

supported in a review by Seppala, Linnoila and Mattila

(1979) who observed that, in

laboratory studies, willingness to take risks is reduced. It would appear, therefore that

marijuana does not contribute to aggressive displays of behaviour.

Brain pathology

Research into the influence of brain pathology in crash causation appears to be quite limited.

The information related here is purely anecdotal. It would seem unlikely that brain diseases

play a major role in the occurrence of aggressive behaviour which results in road crashes,

however, it may be implicated in a very small number. Maletzky (1973) describes the

episodic dyscontrol syndrome. Each of the subjects examined by Maletzky had a history

characterised by episodes of violence. Subjects frequently used their vehicles aggressively

and admitted to using a car as a weapon or to release tension. The cause of this syndrome,

if it exists as a separate disease, is not clear. However, it serves to illustrate that a range of

possibly organic factors can influence driving behaviour. Moyer (1981), reports on brain

tumours that cause aggressive outbursts if located in a particular part of the brain. Sweet,

Ervin and Mark (1969, cited in Moyer, 1981) describe one patient who had displayed

hyperirritability for a number of years. He began to have extremely destructive rages and

began to drive his car recklessly. After removal of a tumour from hi< temporal lobe, these

symptoms disappeared to be replaced by more stable and placid behaviour patterns.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this chapter has discussed the view that drivers do not always place safety as

their first priority while driving, and has described a number of other motives road users

might have for aggressive behaviour when driving. However, this is not to say that other

motives for driving behaviour do not exist. In view of this, aggressive behaviour may be

generated when drivers attempt to fulfil motives other than those of safety first and arriving at

their destination. The assessment of risk and the willingness of the individual to be involved

in dangerous behaviour may also influence the probability of the driver engaging in risky

driving practices. Other factors may also influence aggressive or risky behaviour. There is

evidence that stress and alcohol may influence aggressive behaviour, however, there

appears to be little information with regard to the effects of other drugs and diseases on

aggressive driving behaviour.

Methods of measurement

For the most part, the concept of aggression in driving has been dealt with by investigation

of personality variables. A large number of studies have employed psychometric tests in

order to measure or predict aggressive driving behaviour. It is therefore useful at this point

to discuss briefly the theoretical basis of such tests and their validity.

31

STAYSAFE 58

The nature and use of psychological tests

The traditional function of psychological tests has been, "to measure differences between

individuals or between the reactions of the same individuals on different occasions"

(Anastasi, 1982, p. 3). One of the major contemporary developments that has shaped

present day use of psychological tests occurred in the nineteenth century, when it became

apparent that a systematic method of identifying and classifying mental capacities was

required.

"A psychological test is essentially an objective and standardized measure of a sample of

behaviour" (Anastasi, 1982, p. 22). The rationale behind sampling a relatively small section

of an individual's behaviour is the hypothesis that performance on a psychological test

(provided the nature and number of items on the test have been correctly chosen)

corresponds to another larger area of behaviour. A test's diagnostic or predictive value rests

on the degree to which it acts as an indicator of a "relatively broad and significant area of

behaviour" (p.22).' Psychological tests should therefore be regarded as "behaviour samples

from which predictions regarding other behaviour can be made" (Anastasi, 1982, p. 23-24).

Empirical assessment is the only means by which to establish the effectiveness of the

measured behaviour's ability to serve as an index of other behaviour.

The American Psychological Association has developed a detailed guide for the assessment

of psychological tests. Using the present state of knowledge as a base, this guide

represents a summary of recommended practices in test construction administration and

evaluation. Recommended practice includes adequate standardization of test stimuli.

Standardization should be regarded as a, "special application of the need for controlled

conditions ill all scientific observations"

(Anastasi,

1982, p.

24)

The process of

standardization includes the formulation of detailed instructions for administering the tests.

An important step in the standardization of test procedures is the development of 'norms' .

No previously determined standard's of pass or failure typically C\:~5t for psychological

tests. Generally, an individual's test score is evaluated by comparing it with the scores

attained by others on the same test. Norms, therefore, are only the average (or 'normal')

performance and are established by administering the test to a large representative sample

of the group of people for whom it was designed. This sample is known as the

standardization sample. Norms correspond to the performance of typical or average

persons, and so may not necessarily coincide with the most desirable or ideal performance

(Anastasi, 1982)

Psychological tests are now widely used in manyNar'eas to solve a wide variety of practical

problems ill addition to their use in basic research (for euample, the armed forces, schools,

the clinical setting, and business). The area of psychological testing of concern to this

literature review is that of Personality testing. The assessment of personality is generally

concerned with, "affective, non-intellectual areas of behaviour" (Anastasi, 1982, p. 17). In

this context the term personality test refers to measures of such characteristics as emotional

states, interpersonal relations, motivation, interests and attitudes as distinguished from

abilities. Many of the studies to which we will be referring in this review have also conducted

aptitude and intelligence tests.

A number of different approaches have been developed in attempts to assess personality.

Anastasi (1982) in her book on psychological testing, argues that,

"all available types of personality tests present serious diffiiculties, both

practical and theoretical. Each approach has its own special advantages and

disadvantages. On the whole, personality testing has lagged far behind

aptitude testing in its positive accomplishments" (p. 18).

32

STAYSAFE 58

This lack of advancement, she goes on to say, is not because of a lack of research being

conducted iIi the area, but because of the "rather special difficulties encountered in the

measurement of personality ..." p. 18) . Mischel (1968, cited iii Williams, Henderson and

Mills, 1974) concluded "that standard personality measures have only low predictive ability

with much of the behavioural variance being accounted for by the situation rather than

personality traits as traditionally conceived" (p. 107). In addition, the validity of a given test

can only be established with reference to the particular use for which the test is being

considered. It should be noted at this point that wh)le'Anastasi

(1982) holds grave

reservations with regard to the validity and reliability of the majority of personality measures,

she does not recommend that they be discarded altogether. Given that the test involved has

been adequately standardized and employed in the proper manner, psychometric tests may

be able to provide useful information, although it may be qualitative in nature. The majority

of psychometric techniques are subject to the qualities, experience and training of the test

administrators, and other variable characteristics of the testing situation. Studies using

psychometric measures discussed in the following sections need to be assessed with care,

paying special attention to the methodological practices of the researcher/s.

The next section on psychometric tests and methodology will. discuss the types and validity

of the various psychometric techniques available to and used by researchers in the area of

driver aggression.

Psychometric tests used in the measurement of driver aggression

Psychometric tests used in the investigation of aggression in driving have included;

projective techniques, objective techniques (self report inventories), and either psychiatric or

more general interviews. The majority of studies appear to have used questionnaire and

interview techniques, but projective techniques have also been used extensively. A large

number and variety of tests have been employed by researchers in a wide variety of

settings. Most have been employed in attempts to identify aggressive and/or hostile

personality traits of drivers. In addition to the use of personality tests, the following measures

have also been taken:

Intelligence tests used in studies of driver aggression have included, the Shipley Abstraction

Test (Quenault, 1968a, 1968b, Quenault and Parker, 1973), Raven's Standard Progressive

Matrices

(Williams et al,

1974), Weschler-Bellevue Intelligence

(Conger, Gaskill, Glad,

Hassel, Rainey, Sawrey and Turrell, 1959) and the Gallup Thorndike Verbal Intelligence test

(Malfetti and Fine, 1962). Other tests have included the Semantic Differential Test (Malfetti

and Fine, 1962) and the Standardized Test of Traffic and Driving Knowledge for Drivers of

Motor Trucks (Malfetti and Fine, 1962).

Problems with the use of projective and objective techniques

The use of questionnaire and projective techniques in the measurement of aggression is not

without problems. In particular, the degree to which the scores obtained on projective and

questionnaire tests actually reflect an individual's propensity to engage in aggressive

behaviour requires close scrutiny. The vast majority of these tests do not directly measure

aggression but attempt to obtain information regarding hostile feelings and impulses. Terms

such as hostility and aggressiveness have been used interchangeably to indicate the

individual's propensity for aggression. Kaufmann (1965) has pointed out that the degree to

which this can be determined on the basis of test scores depends on the degree to which the

subject has some belief that his or her behaviour will actually reach its intended victim. If the

individual's subjective probability of their behaviour reaching its goal is zero, then it is not

33

STAYSAFE 58

possible to determine whether the individual's actions would have been different given a

greater than zero prc~bability of the aggressive behaviour being successful. In addition,

personality tests can be expected to reveal large subcultural as well as cultural differences

(Anastasi, 1982). For example the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)

revealed significant elevations on certain scales in other countries when the original

Minneapolis norms are used (Dahlstrom and Dahlstrom, cited in Anastasi, 1982) . Cultural

differences about the type of behaviour considered socially desirable may influence scores.

Studies investigating the characteristics of drivers involved in crashes have found conflicting

results. This may be due to a number of different factors such as methodological differences

arid/or the method of implementation and interpretation of tests. No attempt will be made

here to provide a detailed review of the methodologies or the findings of these siudies, as

they will be reviewed in later sections. However, a short discussion of the use of

psychometric tests would be appropriate.

Tables 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 provide a summary of the projective, questionnaire and interview

techniques employed by various researchers in order to investigate road user characteristics

in different countries over the last 30 to 40 years, although the listing is not exhaustive. The

majority of studies included in this listing are post-1955. Goldstein (1961) provides a listing

of research up to 1957 on human variables in safe motor vehicle operation which includes

lists of psychometric tests employed by researchers.

Projective techniques

Projective techniques which have been used in research into driver aggression include: the

Rorschach (Malfetti and Fine, 1962), Holtzman Inkblot (Pitariu, 1985), the Rosenzweig

PictureFrustration test (Burkner, 1975). Projective techniques are generally concerned with

emotional, motivational, interpersonal arid intellectual aspects of behaviour. These types of

test typically focus attention on personality as a whole rather than measuring of individual

traits. The projective technique originated in the clinical setting and most ref lect the

influence of psychoanalytic concepts (Anastasi, 1982).

TABLE 3.1 Types of projective tests used in the investigation of driver

aggression.

Projective Techniques:

Author/s

Rorschach Test:

Conger et al (1957)

Conger et al (1959)

Malfetti and Fine (1962)

Hamalainen (1973)

Rosenzweig Picture

Preston and Harris (1965)

Frustration Test:

Burkner (1975)

Holtzman Inkblot:

Pitariu (1985)

Thematic Apperception Test:

Conger et al (1957)

(TAT):

Conger et al (1959)

Malfetti and Fine (1962)

Szondi Test:

Achtnich (1967)

Hand Test:

Panek and Wagner (1986)

The Sentence Completion Test:

Malfetti and Fine (1962)

Sacks Sentence Completion Test:

Conger et al (1959)

34

STAYSAFE 58

According to the exponents of projective techniques, these tests are, "especially effective in

revealing covert, latent or unconscious aspects of personality" (Anastasi, p. 565).

Projective techniques are generally distinguishable by the unstructured nature of the task.

That is, the tasks designed for use in projective tests generally permit an unlimited variety of

possible responses. Testing procedures are disguised so that the type of psychological

interpretation that will be made on the basis of the individual's responses to the test are

rarely obvious to the person undertaking the test. The instructions provided to the individual

undertaking the test tend to be very general, to allow "free play to individual fantasy"

(Anastasi, 1982, p. 564). Test stimuli also tend to be ambiguous for the same reasons.

The hypothesis upon which projective techniques are based argues that A...

. the way in

which the individual perceives and interprets the test material, or "structures" the situation,

will reflect fundamental aspects of her or his psychological functioning@ (Anastasi, 1982, p.

564). The individual's responses reflect significant and relatively enduring personality

attributes" (p. 588)

When evaluated as psychometric instruments, the majority of projective tests perform very

poorly. Anastasi (1982) reports that in spite of the popularity of projective techniques in

clinical settings, there is a large and growing body of evidence that indicates that many other

factors also influence a given individual's test responses, in particular, temporary states such

as those induced by hunger, sleep deprivation, drugs, anxiety and frustration. There is also

some suggestion that responses to projective tests may be stimulus specific and therefore of

questionable generalizability. Projective tests are also susceptible to falsified responding

although perhaps less so than the self report inventories. They also tend to be inadequately

standardized in the areas of administration and scoring. Analysis of test responses still

appears to rely heavily on the clinical expertise of the test administrator. It may therefore be

impossible to compare across test application and across test administrators.

In conclusion, as the value of projective tests lies in the hands of the test administrator,

projective tests may serve a more useful purpose as a qualitative aid in interviewing than as

quantitative instruments.

Objective techniques

Self report inventories used in research into driver aggression include; Minnesota Multi-

phasic Personality Inventory

(MMPI) (Brown and Berdie,

1960, Conger et al,

1957),

Maudsley Personality Inventory (Quenault, 1968a, b), Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament

Scale (Mozdzierz et al, 1975), 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire (Williams et al, 1974) .

Questionnaires are often referred to as measures of hostility or aggression. However, as

noted previously, they are used implicitly as measures of aggressiveness (Edmunds and

Kendrick, 1980). Established objective scales are listed in Table 3.2. Scales developed

specifically for the purpose of evaluation of driver attitudes and traits are listed in table 3.3.

Many of these scales were developed using sub-scales of previously established scales and

using items which the researchers felt related to aggression.

A number of approaches have been utilized in formulating, assembling, selecting and

grouping items for questionnaires. These include content validation, empirical criterion

keying, factor analysis and personality theory. These approaches are not however exclusive

of each other, but can theoretically be combined to form a single personality questionnaire

(Anastasi, 1982).

Content validation. The inclusion of items in this formulation is based on content validity.

That is items which according to some kind of a priori (but essentially nontheoretical)

judgement appear relevant tP aggression (Edmunds and Kendrick, 1980).

35

STAYSAFE 58

TABLE 3.2 Types of objective techniques used in studies of driver aggression.

OBJECTIVE TECHNIQUES:

Author/s

Minnesota Multi-phasic

Conger et al (1957)

Personality Inventory:

Conger et al (1959)

Brown and Berdie (1960)

Beamish and Malfetti (1962)

Hamalainen (1973)

Mozdzierz et al (1975)

Minnesota Counceling Inventory

Beamish and Malfetti (1962)

Maudsley Personality Inventory

Quenault (1968a, b)

Quenault and Parker (1973)

Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament

Mozdzierz et al (1975)

scale

Beamish and Malfetti (1962)

Eysenck Personality Inventory

Williams et a1 (1974)

Thurstone Temperament Scale

Conger et al (1957)

16 Personality Factor

Williams et a] (1974)

Questionnaire

Quimby and Watts (1.981)

Hostility and Direction of

Williams et al (1974)

Hostility Questionnaire

Holmes and Rahe Life Events

Selzer and Vinokur (1974)

Checklist

Buss Aggression Scale

Selzer and Vinokur (1974)

Sung Self Rating Depression

Selzer and Vinokur (1974)

Scale

Dilemmas of Choice Questionnaire

Gumpper and Smith (1968)

Gibson's Spiral Maze

Shoham et al (1984)

Taylor Anxiety Scale

Conger et al (1957)

Shoham et al (1984)

Suckerman's Sensation Seeking

Shoham et al (1984)

Scale

Barrat's Impulsivity Scale

Shoham et al (1984)

Siebrecht Attitude Scale

Conger et al (1957)

Preston and Harris (1965)

Beamish and Malfetti (1962)

Allport-Vernon Study of

Conger et al (1957)

Values

Conger et al (1959)

36

STAYSAFE 58

In general, the test designer submits a number of items for judgement by a team of qualified

judges. The items upon which the judges were able to agree are retained (Edmunds arid

Kendrick, 1980). The subject's response to each question is regarded as an index of the

actual presence or absence of the particular attitude or behaviour described in the question.

However, Anastasi points out that few tests in use at present rest their claims completely on

content validity. Edmunds and Kendrick report that such scales are of little use as a means

of measuring aggressiveness. Lanyon and Goodstein

(1971, cited in Edmunds and

Kendrick, 1980) comment that the usefulness of these techniques depends on the degree to

which: the judges were competent to judge themselves with respect to the questionnaire

items, the subjects would respond truthfully, and the clarity or ambiguity of the test items.

Empirical criterion keying. This technique involves the development of a scoring key based

on some kind of external criterion. The selected test items should be capable of

distinguishing between criterion groups. Anastasi

(1982) provides the example of the

Woodworth Data Sheet in which no item was retained for use in this inventory if 25 percent

or more of a normal sample answered it in the unfavourable direction. It was claimed that a

personality characteristic occurring with such frequency in a normal sample could not be

indicative of abnormality. Subject responses to questions developed using criterion keying

are scored in terms of their empirically derived behaviour correlates. The responses to items

are regarded as being diagnostic of the criterion behaviour (Anastasi, 1982).

TABLE 3.3. Scales Developed for Individual Studies.

Many of the following studies have developed their

questionnaires using items which they felt might distinguish

between groups with high and low crash frequency.

SCALES DEVELOPED FOR

Author/s

INDIVIDUAL STUDIES

Shoham, Rahave, Markovski,

Chard and Baruch (1984)

Conger et al (1959)

Mayer and Treat (1977)

Schuster and Guilford (1964)

Donovan, Queisser, Salzburg

and Umlauf (1985)

Selzer and Vinokur (1974)

Selzer, Vinokur and Wilson (1977)

Sobel and Underhill (1976)

Conger et a] (1957)

Hamalainen (1973)

McGuire Safe-Driver Scale

McGuire (1976)

Driver Rules and Attitude

Preston and Harris (1965)

Checklist

Self Report Driving

Panek and Wagner (1986)

Questionnaire

Attitudinal Questionnaire

Quenault, Golby and Pryer (1968)

Risk-taking Questionnaire

Gumpper and Smith (1968)

37

STAYSAFE 58

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) is the most widely used personality

invent9ry and an example of empirical criterion keying (Anastasi, 1982). The inventory

consists of ten scales, eight of which consist of items,which were found to differentiate

between a specified clinical group and a normal group of 700 people. Limitations of the

MMPI include inadequate reliability and the inadequate size and representativeness of the

normative sample (700 Minneapolis adults) (Anastasi, 1982). Many ability tests have

nationwide standardization samples. Anastasi argues that differences in MMPI scores could

represent nothing more than differences in interpretation of individual items, instructions,

cultural differences or may in fact reflect genuine emotional problems. Information regarding

demographic variables (age, sex, education, socioeconomic status, ethnic group) should

therefore be considered carefully when interpreting an individual's responses. Ana.<tasi

goes on to say that the MMPI is a clinical instrument, the proper interpretation of which

requires 'considerable psychological sophistication'.

Factor analysis. The desire to obtain a systematic classification of personality traits

prompted researchers to turn to factor analysis. An example of factor analysis is the

Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey and the Cattell l6 Personality Factor

Questionnaire. Anastasi argues that the use of factor analysis allows division of personality

inventory items into relatively homogeneous and independent clusters. This should facilitate

the study of validity against empirical criteria. The Guilford-Zimmerman inventory is the

product of computed intercorrelations between individual items from many personality

inventories which were eventually combined into the one survey. This inventory produces

separate scores for a number of different personality traits. Each score is based on the

responses to 30 different items. The items are expressed in an affirmative form and are

generally directed at the subject. The Cattell Inventories represent an attempt at a

comprehensive description of personality. Cattell regards factor analysis as a procedure for

discovering and identifying underlying causal traits rather than as a data reduction technique

(Anastasi, 1982). Anastasi argues that factors identified through the factor analysis of Cat

tell may be influenced by social stereotypes, rather than an individua]'s trait organization.

Anastasi concludes that the traits identified by Cattell can onl\ be considered tentatively.

The 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire has shown generally low reliability. There is also

inadequate information regarding normative samples and other aspects of test construction

(Anastasi, 1982).

Personality theory. These types of inventories have ustially been developed iii the clinical

setting and formulated within the framework of different theories of personality.

More so than projective techniques, questionnaire measures of personality are open to

faking by subjects. Most items on most personality inventories have one answer which is

more socially desirable than the other (Anastasi 1982). The subject is therefore given the

oppcrtunity to fake his or her responses in either direction depending on his or Jier

motivation. For example, a person applying for a job may wish to present themselves in the

most favourable way and therefore respond to the more favour,able items (Anastasi, 1982) .

Aiiastasi reports that there is strong evidence to support the claim that responses on

personality inventories can be feigned successfully. Edwards (1975, cited in Anastasi, 1982)

has also found that there is good evidence to support the view that the subject may not even

be aware that he or she is tending to choose the socially desirable answers. This behaviour

may be the result of a desire to 'put on a good front'. The person who chooses unfavourable

items may be motivated by a desire to gain attention (Anastasi, 1982)

Techniques have been developed in order to prevent or detect the occurrence of faking. For

example the use of some socially neutral response sets, or the use of the forced choice

technique.

38

STAYSAFE 58

Several other response sets have been identified which have in the past made interpretation

of test results difficult. These include the tendency to answer YES to all questions. This

response set is conceived as a continuum, at one end the persistent YES people and at the

other end the persistent NO responders (Anastasi, 1982) . Another response set is that of

deviation (tendency to give unusual responses) . These response styles have now come to

be regarded as indicators of broad and enduring personality characteristics. Anastasi

reports that the responses to items on personality inventories are now regarded as having

"broad diagnostic significance, but in terms of their stylistic properties rather than in terms of

specific item content"

(p.

525). In conclusion Anastasi reports that in addition to the

problems outlined above, the behaviour measured by personality inventories may be more

changeable than that measured by ability tests. Diagnostic testing she goes on to say

should be used as an aid in describing and understanding the individual.

Interview techniques

Brief mention should also be made of interviewing techniques. In the study of aggression

these have included informal interviews (Tillman and Hobbs, 1949) as well as structured

psychiatric interviews (Conger et al, 1959). Interviews provide two types of information.

They provide the opportunity for observation of behaviour (although the range of such

behaviour is limited within the interview) and the opportunity to elicit life-history information

(Anastasi, 1982). The individual's previous behaviour acts as a good indicator of what he or

she may do in the future (Anastasi, 1982). Good interviewing requires skill in the way in

which information is collected and interpreted. Poor interview techniques may lead to

erroneous conclusions if important information is not elicited from the interviewee or is not

interpreted correctly. A listing of studies discussed in this review which used interview

techniques is provided in Table 3.4. Some of these studies used structured psychiatric

interviews, employing trained psychiatric and/or psychological staff. Others used more

informal techniques, or a combination of both formal and informal interviews.

Concludinq comment

For more detailed information regarding the nature and use of psychometric tests, the reader

is directed to Anastasi (1982), and the latest editions of the Standards for the Development

of Educational and Psychological Tests and the Mental Measurements Yearbook.

TABLE 3.4. Lists studies that have utilised interview techniques.

INTERVIEW TECHNIQUES

Authors

Psychiatric Interview

Conger et al (1957)

Conger et al (1959)

Macdonald (1964)

Hertz (1970)

Parry (1968)

Selzer (1969)

Hamalainen (1973)

Sobel and Underhill (1976)

Informal Interview

Tillman and Hobbs (1949)

39

STAYSAFE 58

Extreme forms of driver aggression

In order to investigate the role of aggression in the causation of traffic crashes, this chapter

addresses a number of issues raised in the literature dealing with role of extreme aggression

and violence in road crashes. This form of aggression is considered to include any

behaviour where the intent was to cause physical and/or psychological harm to oneself

(attempted or successful suicide) other roads users (homicide, and other malicious acts) or

property. The following chapter will deal with the less extreme forms of aggression

experienced on the road.

Societal attitudes toward driving offences

Clifford and Marjoram (1978) have argued that, "while most people who break the law are

considered deviant and are socially ostracised, those convicted of motoring offences are

more often still regarded as law abiding citizens and their behaviour is tolerated and even

excused" (p. 2). Elliot and Street (1968, cited in Clifford and Marjoram, 1978) consider that

the public does not equate the man who kills through dangerous driving with a normal

criminal. The difference between traditional crime and driving violations is often stressed by

lawyers (Macmillan, 1975, cited in Clifford and Marjoram, 1978). Ross (1960, cited in

Clifford and Marjoram, 1978) has suggested that the cause of society's attitudes toward

driving offences can be found in the newness of the legislation. Legislation against offence~

does not originate in prevailing norms of the society. It is possible that the roots of this

attitude may be found in strongly held beliefs regarding personal rights and liberties

(Whitlock, 1971). However, independent of societal opinion, many driving of fences do result

from 'willfulness and malicious' intent on the part of the driver (Clifford and Marjoram, 1978).

The relationship between crime and traffic violations

The concept of a link between motor vehicle crashes and crime has a long history in the

road safety literature. It has been hypothesized on a number of occasions (Clifford and

Marjoram, 1978, Porterfield,

1960, Whitlock,

1971) that violence and aggression as a

general characteristic of a society is a factor in the rates of death by motor vehicle crash. In

societies where there is a high level of violent crime, there will occur a high rate of death by

motor vehicle crash (Clifford and Marjoram, 1978). Whitlock (1971) proposes that death by

suicide, homicide, violent crime and other forms of accidental death can be regarded as a

manifestation of the quality and quantity of aggression in a given society. Whitlock adds that

measures of the misuse of alcohol can also be regarded as indicators of the extent of

aggression in society. Porterfield (1960) postulated that, "a significant number of drivers of

'death dealing cars as well as their victims have attitudes similar to those who become

involved in suicide and homicide" (p. 897). While an Australian study (Williams, Henderson

and Mills, 1974) found no difference in the criminal records of serious traffic offenders and a

group of non-traffic offenders, other researchers consider there may be a relationship. In a

1967 European study bad drivers were seen as having criminal' tendencies (Achtnich,

1967). Porterfield (1960) argues that if drivers do not have a high regard for their own lives

or the lives of other people, they will most likely have a higher crash rate as well.

Due to international difficulties in defining the concept of violent crime, Clifford and Marjoram

in a study of Australian data chose murder offences as the measure of violent crime in their

study, as this offence is generally well standardized between countries. They found that it

was not possible to say conclusively without further research that a correlation exists

between the murder rate and the rates of death by motor vehicle crashes, although their

data were to a small extent suggestive of that. It should be noted that road deaths are

40

STAYSAFE 58

sudden events and unlike murder are generally caused by a person or persons unknown to

the victim (Cliifford and Marjoram, 1978).

The relationship between violent crime and motor vehicle crashes has been investigated at

the local. level and in society at large. Michalowski (1975) reported on 119 fatal crashes in

Columbus, Ohio in which the driver was considered to be responsible for the death of

another person (who in no way contributed to his or her own death). These incidents are

classified as vehicular homicide or manslaughter by negligence. Crashes in which alcohol

was implicated were not used. It should be noted that level of risk and exposure were not

controlled for. Briefly, his findings were that vehicular homicides occur more frequently in

areas of low socieconomic status and a large black population. These areas accounted for

58.6 percent of all vehicular homicides and contained 76.6 percent of the black population

(37.5 percent of the total population). Areas of higher socioeconomic status accounted for

17.7 percent of the vehicular homicides but contained 34 percent of the total population and

5.6 percent of the black population. Areas in which there was a high rate of murder, rape,

robbery and aggravated assault also tended to have high rates of traffic violence. A

correlation of r = .73 was obtained between vehicular homicides and these other forms of

violence. The party held responsible for vehicular homicides was significantly more likely to

be male (83.1 percent), black (31.1 per hundred thousand - as opposed to 22.6 for whites),

young (54.3 percent were under 35), unmarried (52 percent) and of lower socioeconomic

status (65 percent were unskilled labour or unemployed) than the population at risk. These

characteristics were found to be similar to those involved in other violent crimes. However,

Michalowski reported that black vehicular homicide offenders while over-represented in this

area, constitute a considerably smaller proportion (23.8 percent) of the vehicular homicide

offenders than other offenders of violent crime (53 percent). It has been claimed (DeSilva,

1949, cited in Michalowski, 1975) that black people have less access to cars than the white

population and have lower annual mileage. Michalowski commented that if this is the case,

the fact that blacks are not over-represented among vehicular homicide perpetrators may be

a result of differential opportunity. However, controlling for crash risk and exposure would

most likely inflate their involvement rate in vehicular homicides.

Michalowski also observed that the victims of vehicular homicides tend to have similar

characteristics to the perpetrators although those held responsible for the crash had prior

conviction records for criminal of fences significantly more often. These included both

criminal offences and traff ic violations. Alcohol also made a significant contribution to these

crashes with 45.7 percent of offenders revealing some usage at the time of the crash and

27.9 percent being legally intoxicated. The comparisons made in this study between rates of

violent crime and rates of death by vehicular homicide (which would include only deaths

caused by negligent drivers) may be more appropriate than a comparison of rates of violent

crime and rates of motor vehicle crash deaths (which may include deaths not caused by

negligence on the part of the driver). Michalowski's data suggest that there may be a

relationship between rates of violent crime and rates of vehicular homicide. However, due to

a number of methodological problems, these data must be viewed with caution.

Other writers have found correlations between the number of deaths by motor vehicle crash

and homicide (Haight, 1965, cited in Hamalainen, 1973, Porterfield, 1960, Whitlock, 1971).

Whitlock (1971) found that measures of violent death and crime (rape, robbery, murder)

were correlated positively (and in most cases significantly) with road deaths in 27 world

states (including Australia, the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Republic of

Ireland, New Zealand and other western European countries). In Australia, in the years

1960 to 1964, Whitlock reported significant correlations were found between road deaths

and injuries/100 million vehicle-miles and combined suicide and homicide deaths/100,000

population. Significant correlations were also found between road deaths and injuries/100

million vehicle-miles and homicides alone. However, when injuries were excluded, no

significant correlations were found between road deaths and homicides or suicides and

41

STAYSAFE 58

homicides combined. A negative (non-significant) correlation was obtained between road

deaths and injuries and rates of rape and robbery per 100,000 population.

The results of most of these studies suggest that a relationship may exist between rates of

death or injury by motor vehicle accident and violent crime. However, given the

methodological problems of some studies and the difficulties experienced when making valid

international comparisons these results should be regarded with caution. If such a

relationship does exist then the basis of the aggressive driving problem must be found in the

social norms and values of the given society.

Before going on to consider the more general occurrence of aggression ii, driving,

consideration will now be given to the separate but closely related topics of attempted or

actual suicide, culpable driving, and other malicious acts by drivers on the road.

Suicidal intentions are thought to be common in association with depressive mental illness

(Henderson, 1971). It has been suggested in the literature that some motor vehicle crashes

are actually suicides or attempted suicides. There is a relatively large literature concerning

the extent of suicide by motor vehicle.

Motor vehicle crashes as suicide

Fatalities which are the result of motor vehicle crashes are very rarely certified as suicide by

medical examiners (Schmidt, Shaffer, Zlotowitz and Fisher,

1977). Indeed, death by

automobile offers almost the perfect opportunity for individuals wishing to commit suicide or

even murder with little prospect of detection (Macdonald, 1964). The method of suicide

is~nown to follow the social customs of the period (Henderson, 1971). Macdonald (1964)

after interviewing 40 psychiatric patients known to have attempted suicide or suicide and

murder using a motor vehicle reports that the choice of the motor vehicle as the suicide

weapon tends to be governed by its availability. Selzer and Payne (1962) suggest that,

given the high status of the automobile in western society, suicide by automobile may

provide the depressed and frustrated individual with the chance to go out in what he or she

may consider to be "a burst of glory" (p. 239).

The motivation of people wanting to conceal evidence of murder is self-evident and the

desire to conceal real attempts at suicide

(as opposed to attempts designed to seek

attention) must also be obvious. 'The victim may wish to protect his or her family and/or

allow them to collect the insurance benef its without problem (Macdonald, 1964, Valentine,

Williams and Young, 1977). Valentine et al (1977) also suggest that motor vehicle suicide

may allow the suicidal individual to continue to deny that he or she is making a conscious

suicide attempt.

Crash rates and suicide

It has been estimated by a forensic pathologist (cited in Schmidt et al, 1977) that at least 10

to 15 percent and possibly as high as 30 percent of all single-vehicle crashes are suicides.

Hamburger (1969, cited in Noyes, 1985) reported that 15 percent of the people interviewed

by him had considered attempting suicide using a motor vehicle. However, in spite of these

comments the actual number would appear to be somewhat smaller than the 10 to 15

percent proposed above. The principal finding of Schmidt et al.’s 1977 study was that 1.7

percent (3 of 182 cases) of the total of the fatal crashes they considered were suicide. Of

these 182 fatal crashes, 111 involved a single vehicle. The suicides represented 2.7 percent

of the single vehicle crashes. This is much less than the 10 to 15 percent estimated by the

forensic pathologist in Schmidt et al (1977). The deaths Schmidt et al determined were

suicides had been certified as accidental by the medical examiner’s office. Of the non-fatal

crashes investigated by Schmidt et al, only 1 of 96 cases was finally considered to have

42

STAYSAFE 58

been attempted suicide. The man involved at first denied that the crash had been attempted

suicide, but later admitted to it. In addition, a study by the California Highway Patrol (1967,

cited in Noyes, 1985) identified only 1.6 percent of fatal single vehicle crashes as possible

suicides.

Bollen (1983) using regression analysis investigated the possibility that a substantial number

of fatal motor vehicle crashes may have a suicide component. The daily patterns of motor

vehicle crash and suicides for the United States in 1972 to 1976 were investigated. He found

that motor vehicle fatalities tended to peak on Saturdays, in the summer months and on

holidays. Suicides were found to be highest on Mondays and on non-holidays. A small

negative correlation was found between motor vehicle fatalities and suicides. Motor vehicle

fatalities and suicides were found to trough and peak on opposite days. The greatest

similarity between motor vehicle crashes and suicides was that the motor vehicle fatality rate

and the suicide rate were both high on New Year’s Day and in summer and spring but were

generally low in winter.

The study conducted by Schmidt et al (1977) consisted of an investigation of a total of 182

fatal crashes (111 single vehicle and 71 multiple vehicle) each resulting in one or more

fatalities in Baltimore County in the U.S.. Ninety-six non-fatal crashes were also investigated.

This sample was matched with the drivers from the fatally injured sample on the following

factors; day of week and approximate time of crash, level of alcohol intoxication, and

proportion of single vehicle collisions. All were drawn from the same geographic area. The

presence of other drugs was also tested for but were not found to be present. Cooperation of

relatives and friends was obtained in order to carry out a psychological autopsy of the

victims. These involved questionnaires and structured interviews. Psychological autopsies

generally involve an evaluation of the personality and psychological components of the

deceased driver. Such ‘autopsies’ also typically include social history, and health factors as

well as judgements regarding the drivers’ depressive-suicidal, sociopathic, homicide,

impulsive, paranoid and overtly psychotic tendencies (Valentine, Williams and Young, 1977).

One problem with this type of study is that it requires relatives and friends to make

judgements after the event about the individual’s state of mind. Given the fatal nature of the

crashes considered, relatives may be more inclined to accept the possibility of mental

disturbance than they would before the crash or if it had not occurred.

A number of studies (Crancer and Quiring, 1970, Hamalainen, 1973, Macdonald, 1964,

Selzer and Payne, 1962) have investigated the personality characteristics and driving

records of individuals hospitalised for suicidal gestures. In general, these studies have found

that their subjects had a greater crash rate than the general population. This appears to be a

fairly robust finding. Only one study (Kennedy et al, 1971, cited in Noyes, 1985) appears to

have found no significant difference in the accident rate (including traffic crashes) of people

who have attempted suicide and those who have not. Crancer and Quiring (1970) in a study

of 915 people hospitalised for suicidal gestures had a statistically higher crash rate that the

general population. They also had more violations for drunken driving, reckless driving,

driving while suspended and negligent driving. This finding is also reflected in those obtained

by Schmidt et al

(1977). Eelkema, Brosseau, Koshnick and McGee (1970) found no

significant difference in the number of suicide attempts between drivers who had

experienced single vehicle crashes and drivers involved in other types of motor vehicle

crashes. However, a significant difference was found in the number of suicide attempts

between patients with single vehicle crashes and those who had not experienced a crash.

Characteristics of suicide attempters

A number of researchers have introduced psychoanalytic theory into discussion of the

causes of some motor vehicle crashes. Jackson (1957, cited in Valentine et al, 1977)

suggests that suicide has its foundations in Freud’s conception that the suicidal person

becomes self destructive as a means to ridding him or herself of intolerable guilt. Various

43

STAYSAFE 58

other researchers have postulated that many motor vehicle crashes may be a result of either

conscious or unconscious self destructive forces and suicidal tendencies (Adams, 1970,

Hamalainen, 1973, Selzer and Payne, 1962). Pokorny (1975, cited in Valentine et al, 1977)

stated that “self destructive trends are expressed through increased risk taking behaviour,

faulty vehicle maintenance, driving while intoxicated, driving while under emotional stress

and so forth”

(p.

25). Selzer and Payne

(1962) argued that support for the role of

unconscious motives was provided by the observation that the drivers in their study

generally viewed their crashes as fortuitous.

In contrast, others have been more sceptical about linking suicidal tendencies with such

factors. For example Tabachnick (1973, cited in Selzer et al, 1977) found that significant

personality differences are to be found between known suicide attempters and survivors of

motor vehicle crashes. This result was also reflected in the data of Shaffer et al (1972, cited

in Selzer et al, 1977). They found that, while both successful male suicides and male fatal

crash victim groups were considerably more deviant than the general population, there were

a number of reliable differences indicating more deviancy in the suicide sample than the

crash sample. These results therefore lend little support to the idea that a significant

proportion of these crashes were attempts at (unconscious) self destruction.

Macdonald (1964) considered only individuals known to have attempted suicide or murder

using a motor vehicle. He observed that 25 percent of his patients had character disorders

such as hysterical, passive aggressive, and sociopathic personality disorders. Only a small

number of patients were psychotic or schizophrenic, but all were psychiatric patients. Half of

Macdonald’s patients had made their attempt on impulse following fights or arguments.

Schmidt et al (1977) found after the event that the victims of both the fatal and non-fatal

crashes were rated by their friends and relatives as having above average levels of

psychopathology and social aggressiveness.

The link with alcohol

Selzer and Payne (1962) investigated the possibility that alcohol in combination with suicidal

tendencies may be implicated in crash occurrence. In this study of 60 men undergoing

psychiatric treatment, Selzer and Payne observed significant differences in crash rate

between two groups of suicidal and non-suicidal men. These two groups did not differ in the

number of miles driven or their socioeconomic background. The 33 suicidal men included 17

alcoholics and 16 non-alcoholics. This group as a whole accounted for significantly more

crashes (89) than their 27 non-suicidal (13 alcoholic and 14 non-alcoholic) counterparts who

accounted for 36 crashes. It is of interest that within the 33 member suicidal group by far the

majority of crashes (63) were accounted for by the alcoholic sub-group. The 16 suicidal non-

alcoholics had a total of 26 crashes. While these data were not analysed statistically, they

may indicate a substantial effect of alcohol. Selzer and Payne suggested that crashes in

which alcohol intoxication is a feature may be due not only to the impairment of driving skills

associated with intoxication but also, “because of its potential for reducing the controlling and

conforming function of the super ego, thus releasing aggressive and self destructive

impulses” 1962, p. 240). Donovan, Marlatt and Salzburg (1983) also concluded that alcohol

may serve to increase levels of covert hostility and overt aggression which may be translated

into driver related aggression.

Preventing suicides

Macdonald (1964) suggested that the extent of attempted and actual suicide by vehicular

crash may be concealed from the authorities and the public in general, because of the

difficulty in assessing the true level. However, from the available evidence the problem of

suicide appears to be relatively small in comparison with the causes of other motor vehicle

crashes. Noyes (1985) estimates that the number of crashes that are suicides is probably

less than five percent. However, given the evidence of Selzer et al (1977) and other

evidence presented the figure may be as low as two to three percent.

44

STAYSAFE 58

Preventing the few motor vehicle suicides that do occur may prove extremely difficult.

Macdonald (1964) points out that the potential victims are generally unlikely to come forward

for help until it is too late. Macdonald suggested that the authorities (police and doctors)

should be made aware of the presence of such a problem in order to initiate early psychiatric

evaluation. He recommended that crashes should not be simply dismissed as being due to

alcohol, fatigue or speed. The presence of skidmarks or the use of seatbelts may be used to

disguise possible suicide attempts. Macdonald reports one case in which a young woman

when attempting suicide had worn her seat belt in order to dispel any suspicion that she had

committed suicide. Many road safety investigators, however, would be reluctant to agree

with such speculations concerning suicide as they appear to be based on very little

evidence.

Crimes of violence on the road

The literature on extreme forms of aggression (such as homicide or other outward directed

aggressive acts) in driving is relatively small in comparison with the literature on suicide by

motor vehicle. Michalowski

(1975) argues that negligent driving, while not necessarily

demonstrating intent does reveal a willingness to risk violent outcomes. The comment that

many driving offences are not without wilful and malicious intent was illustrated most

forcefully recently with reports of shootings on Los Angeles freeways by apparently irate

motorists (Perrett, 1987). Motorists have reported being shot at for cutting in front of another

vehicle, and for similar supposedly bad mannered and/or dangerous acts. Perrett reported

that the police have indicated a general increase in levels of discourtesy, as drivers take out

their frustrations on the other vehicle or the other driver. This type of behaviour represents a

deliberate intent on the part of the perpetrator to cause damage to persons or property if not

to commit murder. Macdonald (1964) reported on psychiatric patients who admitted in three

cases to attempted murder and in seven to both attempted murder and suicide. Fortunately

these events represent the extreme end of the spectrum in terms of motor vehicle crashes

and appear to be relatively uncommon in occurrence.

Parry’s (1968) study is notable for the extreme nature of the aggressiveness reported by

some of the subjects in the study. Parry’s general hypothesis was that drivers displaying

aggressive driving behaviour are liable to have more crashes while drivers in a state of

anxiety are also more liable and that a combination of anxiety and aggression may lead to

an increase in the rate of crashes. A selection of 382 drivers (279 males and 103 females

ranging in age from 17 to 70) were sampled and a questionnaire developed for the purpose

was administered. Responses to questionnaire items were scored as being more or less

aggressive and more or less anxious. The questionnaire was also followed up by a sentence

completion task and an interview. This involved only 55 of the drivers from both extremes of

the scores for aggression/anxiety. The 30 high extreme drivers initially chosen for interview

(27 were finally used) were found to account for 24.2 percent of all the recorded (self

reported) crashes. The 30 low extreme drivers initially selected (23 were finally interviewed)

accounted for 1.7 percent of all the recorded crashes.

Parry provided examples only of comments made by subjects found to be high in aggression

and anxiety. These highly aggressive sounding subjects were remarkable for their antisocial

attitudes towards other drivers. Driving actions such as giving chase to other vehicles when

annoyed, deliberately edging another vehicle off the road, accelerating when another vehicle

was trying to pass, driving into other vehicles in a temper, intimidating other drivers on the

road (in one instance the driver admitted to intimidating learners in order to assist their

learning to drive) appeared to be commonplace. However, Parry’s study illustrates the

problems with many questionnaire techniques in that they cannot measure aggressive

behaviour or necessarily even tendencies to be aggressive. They can only measure the

45

STAYSAFE 58

feelings or attitudes of hostility or aggression which may or may not be predictive of the way

the individual will act in a real driving situation. There is also no guarantee that subjects are

not faking responses, although Parry’s subjects were not slow in justifying their behaviour.

Parry relied upon subject estimates of crash rates. In addition, he did not appear to set a

time limit on the number of years to be included in the estimate. Parry concluded that high

aggression increased crash liability. The most aggressive drivers, those showing the most

overt aggressive characteristics were typically although not exclusively male and in the 17 to

35 age bracket. The younger age groups (17 to 34 years of age) were also most liable to

crashes. Aggression was found to have a greater influence than anxiety on crash rate. Given

that Parry chose drivers from the extreme ends of his aggression and anxiety scales, it is

perhaps not surprising that the anti-social attitudes and (reported) behaviours expressed by

his highly aggressive drivers were obtained.

Parry used three sampling methods to obtain drivers; random sampling of drivers in the

area, selecting every 10th vehicle on a major road in the area and using a sample of drivers

who voluntarily returned the questionnaire that had been posted to them. No significant

differences were found in the responses of drivers obtained through the three sampling

methods used. On the basis of this, Parry concluded that the attitudes and characteristics of

his sample of low and highly aggressive drivers could be considered representative of the

driving population. However, there is insufficient evidence that this is the case. Although

Parry asked subjects to state miles driven, years driving, and frequency of driving, he did not

appear to control for these factors when drawing conclusions. Given that few other studies

have reported such extremes of attitudes and reported behaviours as the high

aggression/anxiety sample described by Parry, it is unlikely that such people are typical of

the majority of road users and are, in fact, quite rare.

Less extreme forms of driver aggression

A large number of studies have investigated the effects of different driver characteristics

(social, psychological or psychophysiological) on the occurrence of motor vehicle crashes

and traffic violations. A significant percentage of these studies have evaluated the role of

aggressive personality traits in driving crashes through the use of psychometric testing. Thus

in contrast with chapter 2, this section concentrates less on the motives for aggressive

behaviour displayed by ‘normal’ members of the driving population. The emphasis is placed

instead on the way in which aggressive personality traits may influence rates of crash

involvement of drivers.

A major influence in the study of personality factors in road traffic crashes is the concept of

‘accident proneness’ (as it is always referred to in the literature) (Farmer and Chambers,

1939, Greenwood and Woods, 1919, cited in McKenna, 1983). Early investigations into

personal factors and accidents originate at least in part from this work (Tsuang, Boor and

Fleming, 1985). In view of the impact the concept has had on the investigation of personality

factors of drivers, the concept of accident proneness will be discussed. This will be followed

by a review of the role of personality factors in crashes and the general psychological and

social characteristics of drivers most at risk of being involved in crashes.

The concept of accident proneness

Historically, the concept of accident proneness originated in the work of Greenwood and

Woods (1919). They investigated accidents among workers in a munitions factory in Britain

during the First World War. These early investigators examined and compared the

46

STAYSAFE 58

distribution of accidents with alternate hypothetical distributions which were based on

different assumptions about the causes of accidents. If the chance of having an accident is

the same for each individual, then the distribution produced would be a Poisson distribution.

However, if the accident probability was unequal for different individuals, then another

distribution such as the negative binomial could be expected (McKenna, 1983). Accidents

were found to be unevenly distributed with a relatively- small proportion of the workers

having most of the accidents. They went on to hypothesise that personality differences could

account for this distorted distribution. However, such a conclusion was not justified on the

basis of the evidence presented (Henderson, 1971). For instance, no personality tests had

been performed.

The term accident proneness appears to have been coined by Farmer and Chambers (1939,

cited in Henderson, 1971). They used the term to refer only to personal factors. Farmer and

Chambers also found an uneven distribution of accidents. With the use of psychological

testing they claimed that they had established the existence of accident proneness.

Henderson reports, however, that these tests were of doubtful validity. Only one proved to

be significantly related to accidents. This was not a test of personality. Even so, the study

has been reported as evidence for the existence of personality differences between crash

repeaters and non-crash involved drivers.

A consistent definition of the concept of accident proneness has not been employed by the

many researchers in the area (McKenna, 1983, Shaw and Sichel, 1971). Thus, it is not

surprising that several approaches to accident proneness have developed. The first treats

accident proneness as a single personality trait or type, while another considers it as a

multiple series of characteristics

(McKenna, 1983). Other researchers have described

accident proneness very broadly as ‘a tendency to have accidents’ (Shaw and Sichel, 1971).

This tendency is regarded as a global characteristic, generalising across different

environments. If a person is to be considered accident prone “he must be susceptible to

accidents ‘under all circumstances’ or at all times’” (Shaw and Sichel, 1971, p. 13). Wong

and Hobbs (1919, cite in McKenna, 1983) concluded that “accident tendency was a lifelong

characteristic and that it appears to invade all aspects of life”. Finally, several authors have

postulated that accident proneness refers to innate, unchanging characteristics of the

individual (Hale and Hale, 1972, cited in McKenna, 1983). However, this latter view must be

considered an extremely controversial position as there is effectively no evidence to support

it.

Shaw and Sichel

(1971) contend that whatever the definition ascribed to accident

proneness, the basic underlying principle which all interpretations hold in common is that,

“even when exposed to the same conditions some people are inherently more likely to have

accidents than others...people differ in their innate propensity for accidents” (p. 14).

In general the concept of accident proneness has fallen from favour. The concept has been

criticised on statistical grounds (McKenna, 1982, 1983). McKenna (1983) reports that the

negative binomial fit may be derived from assumptions which do not involve differential risk

of having an accident. Some individuals in any given group would be expected to have more

accidents purely by chance (Joseph and Schwartz, 1975, cited in Noyes, 1985). The

interpretation of negative binomial fit as evidence for accident proneness requires the

absolute control of non-personal factors such as exposure to accident risk and biases in

accident reporting. Such a distribution could also be obtained if some people are more

exposed to risk than others (McKenna, 1983).

Another approach to accident proneness has been to investigate the consistency of accident

involvement (McKenna, 1983). An accident prone person who is involved in an accident in

one period of time would be predicted to be involved in an accident in another period of time

(Hakkinen, 1958). Correlation coefficients between the two periods have been used as a test

47

STAYSAFE 58

of accident proneness. Sichel (1971, cited in McKenna, 1983) points to the difficulty in

interpreting correlation coefficients from a bivariate negative binomial distribution. Different

distributions may produce identical numerical correlations; however, these correlations may

have very different characteristics. The composition of the crash repeater group is also

known to change from one time period to the next (Burg, 1970). In addition, variation in

exposure to risk between individuals could be sufficient to produce significant correlations.

Mintz and Blum (1949, cited in McKenna, 1983) point out that even if distributions are based

on chance it is possible to ascertain that a few people are responsible for a large number of

accidents. It is expected by chance that some individuals will have several accidents, some

will have no accidents and some will have only a few accidents.

These criticisms and others have led to accident proneness falling generally into disfavour. It

is obvious that a great deal of conceptual confusion surrounds the concept of accident

proneness. McKenna cites a number of authors who reject the concept of accident

proneness as a unitary personality characteristic (Haddon, Suchman and Klein, 1964, cited

in McKenna, 1983), while not rejecting the view that a range of different psychological

factors can influence crash involvement. It is clear that Haddon et al considered accident

proneness to be quite distinct from the concept that a number of different psychological

factors contribute to crash occurrence (McKenna, 1983). The circularity of definitions of

accident proneness have also been criticised (Cameron, 1975, cited in McKenna, 1983)

when it has been used both to explain patterns of accident involvement and then as a causal

explanation of the same pattern it has just been used to describe. Most importantly, the

concept has failed to provide a means by which to predict individual accident involvement.

Differential accident involvement

More recently attempts have been made to replace accident proneness with an upgraded

concept. McKenna (1982, 1983) proposes that a new term ‘differential accident involvement’

be used to replace accident proneness, the advantage of using such a term being the

absence of the historical confusion surrounding the definition of accident proneness. This

confusion has resulted in researchers accepting and/or rejecting different concepts all of

which have been labelled accident proneness (McKenna, 1983). In the view of McKenna,

differential accident involvement represents an alternate approach to the study of individual

differences in accident causation. The concept of accident proneness represents a particular

position. He also argues that the new concept would be based on psychological testing

rather than on statistical modelling and would therefore avoid the disputes surrounding the

meaning of particular distributions.

The central issue of the differential accident involvement approach would be to consider

whether or not it is possible to identify or predict accident-involved individuals using

psychological tests McKenna, 1983). He also argues that no, assumptions regarding the

stability of accident involvement or the shape of the distribution need to be made. While

differential accident involvement is based on psychological testing, McKenna points out that

the concept of accident proneness relies on statistical modelling and is arrived at through a

process of exclusion. “An attempt is made to control all factors relating to risk exposure,

accident reporting etc. If a result then occurs it is attributed to something else

- this

something else is called accident proneness. Accident proneness is thus defined not by what

it is, but by what it is not” (McKenna, 1982, p. 70). McKenna also argues that accident

proneness implies that accident involvement is necessarily a stable phenomenon. Contrary

to this statement, some authors have also postulated that accident proneness may exist for

shorter periods of time (McGuire, 1976). To sum up, differential accident involvement, while

representing an attempt to free the area of accident research from the semantic confusion

surrounding the concept of accident proneness does not appear effectively to provide a new

direction for research. Within the concept of accident proneness, researchers have already

48

STAYSAFE 58

allowed for factors such as short term accident liability and have investigated the role of

personality factors using personality tests. The approach of differential accident involvement

therefore, may not provide new directions in the prediction of the personal factors relating to

accident involvement.

Personal factors relating to crashes

Methodological issues

Studies comparing driver characteristics (in particular aggressive characteristics) of so called

crash repeaters and crash free drivers have obtained equivocal results. The explanation for

such inconsistent results most probably lies in differing and/or (more likely) inadequate

methodology. This point has been reiterated by a number of other authors (Conger, Gaskill,

Glad, Hassel, Rainey and Sawrey, 1959, Haddon, Suchman and Klein, 1964, cited in

Henderson, l971). Some of the methodological problems with studies of personality of crash

repeaters include;

Variation in exposure. Failure to control for variations in crash exposure (for example,

Porterfield, 1960). This includes not only controlling for the distance travelled by the drivers

under investigation, but also controlling for homogeneity of the risks the drivers are exposed

too. Mileage is known to increase crash rate. This measure should be a fundamental control

implemented in studies of this kind.

Control groups. Absence of an adequate control group (for example, Brown and Berdie,

1960). While most studies appear to have matched their control groups with the crash

repeater group on the basis of a number of socio-demographic factors, they have failed to

mention the extent to which the drivers are exposed to the risk of collisions and in the case

of studies involving traffic violations, the extent to which drivers are liable to be

apprehended.

Sample size. Small numbers of subjects (for example, Malfetti and Fine, 1962).

Stability of personality traits. Haddon et al (1964, cited in Henderson, 1971) also add failure

to discriminate between characteristics that are stable over time and those which change.

The concept of the personality traits implies a certain amount of stability over time (Williams,

Henderson and Mills, 1974). It is difficult to see how traits which are not stable over time can

be identified with any accuracy. In addition, determining whether changes in performance on

personality tests are the result of changes within the individual or to situation specific factors

(such as changes in test administration) may be extremely difficult to assess.

Validation of results. With the exception of a few studies, most have not attempted to cross

validate findings with different populations.

Objective measurement. Lack of objectivity in the measurement of driver characteristics. For

example, the use of inadequately standardised tests. In addition the use of self report

methods presents participants with the opportunity to falsify information about their crash

involvement and attitudes in general. A few studies have attempted to prevent such

occurrences by verifying subject reports with the authorities and personal contacts of the

subjects (Selzer et al, 1977, Tillman and Hobbs, 1949). People are known to underestimate

their level of crash involvement.

Tillman and Hobbs (1949) and Quenault (1968a) report that crash repeaters in their studies

tended to underestimate the extent of their crash involvement.

49

STAYSAFE 58

Williams, Henderson and Mills (1974) found that a significant number of traffic offenders, in

comparison with a control group, reported a major emotional disturbance in their lives in a

short period before their crash or offence. This may have been reported by offenders in

explanation of their offence (Williams et al il974). Whether these events happened or were

fabricated cannot always be determined nor can their personal significance.

Studies that have used projective techniques have often not provided adequate descriptions

of the tests themselves or the methods by which they were administered. A small number of

studies (Conger et al, 1959, Malfetti and Fine, 1962 and others), are notable for the detail in

which they have obtained their information and the information provided in the actual paper.

Reliability of crash criteria. Lack of reliability in the crash criteria employed (see Burg, 1970).

The number of crashes assigned to each subject will depend on the definition employed.

Crashes have been categorized in a number of different ways. This can depend upon the

availability of crash data from road traffic authorities and the police. Some studies for

example have used only crashes involving fatalities. Other studies have also only included

crashes for which the driver has been held responsible (e.g., Michalowski, 1975).

In general, research has concentrated on analysing crash data and characteristics of victims.

A smaller number of studies have investigated the data for traffic infringements and

violations. Most researchers acknowledge the limitations of using crash records as an

indicator of driving performance. Some authors (e.g., Selzer et al, 1977) have limited their

studies to crashes that have involved fatalities in an attempt to ensure the presence of

accurate records.

Understandably, obtaining accurate violation and infringement rates is more difficult than

obtaining crash information, as such events are not always detected or reported. While

minor crashes may not always be reported, the more severe crashes should be reported

more consistently, especially if the police are involved. When traffic violation records have

been used, the well kept records of bus and freight companies have sometimes been used.

In analysing violation data, we should also be wary of possible bias in official crash records,

not only in terms of which records, have been recorded, but also the possibility of

discrimination in the prosecution of drivers. For example, Klein (1972) quotes a study by

Huessenstamm (1971) in which fifteen adolescents with good driving records received a

total of

33 citations within

17 days of affixing bumper stickers of the Black Panther

movement on their vehicles.

Personal characteristics of crash involved drivers

The literature to be reviewed below on the involvement of personality factors in traffic

crashes and violations can generally be categorized into two main groups according to

whether the study deals with individual personality factors (using personality test results

and/or psychiatric evaluation) or social/demographic characteristics. Studies of the

personality characteristics of drivers have dealt with aggression directly as a personality

variable. Studies of social and demographic characteristics have investigated the

relationships between crash repeaters and possible social deviancy.

An extensive number of studies have been published dating back to the earliest studies on

‘accident proneness’. These studies have differed widely in the methods used and in the

quality of the work. The reader should take note of the criticisms of these types of studies

made above. In addition, a number of literature reviews have been published (McGuire,

197G, Valentine, Williams and Young, 19/'7, Tsuang et al, 1985, Noyes, 1085).

50

STAYSAFE 58

Personality factors

Early studies. One of the earliest and most cited studies is that of Tillman and Hobbs (1949),

who appear to have coined the phrase that, “a man drives as he lives” (p. 329). This

comment encompasses the view that certain personal characteristics of drivers make them

more or less likely to be involved in crashes. Most of the information in the Tillman and

Hobbs study was obtained by Tillman who spent approximately three months with 20 high

crash and 20 low crash drivers of a taxi firm, travelling in their cars and talking to them and

attempting to check their stories with associates and friends. The investigator would have

been aware whether each driver was of the low or high crash type. Additional evidence was

obtained from the police, juvenile court, and other social agencies, although it appears that

most of these data were of the self report type. However, the authors noted that only three

cases of lying were detected. Tillman and Hobbs concluded that in the taxi driver group,

individuals with high crash rates were characterised by aggressiveness and inability to

tolerate authority. In terms of their driving habits, the high crash group became easily

distracted when driving, and annoyed at other drivers. Eleven of the twenty reported a

history of aggressiveness as children. The family background of the driver was suspected as

the origin of these traits.

In another frequently cited study, Conger, Gaskill, Glad, Hassel, Rainey, Sawrey and Turrell

(1959) conducted a detailed evaluation of 10 high and 10 low (road) crash involved airmen.

This was part of a four year investigation. A previous paper (Conger, Gaskill, Glad, Rainey,

Sawrey and Turrell, 1957) reported the results of cross validation studies. However, this

study also suffered from small sample sizes. The 1957 study consisted of an initial sample of

110 drivers (15 no crash, 35 moderate crash, 15 high crash and 35 unclassified subjects).

The cross validation sample consisted of 154 drivers (25 no crash, 25 moderate crash, 15

high crash and 89 unclassified subjects). The high crash group were defined as those who

had had two or more crashes for which they had been held responsible in the previous four

years. The low crash group consisted of subjects who had incurred no crashes (officially

recorded, or in their own estimation) in the previous four and a half years.

Of a number of tests administered (for example, MMPI, Thurstone Temperament scale) only

three scales of the Allport-Vernon Scale of Values discriminated between high and low crash

groups in both the initial and cross validation samples. These were those dealing with

aesthetic, theoretical and religious issues. However, religious values was the only scale

significant to the 0.05 level. The no crash subjects were more oriented toward religious

values than they were toward aesthetic or theoretical values compared with the high crash

subjects. Mayer and Treat (1977) however, using questions on pro-religious values adapted

from the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey study of values failed to find a significant difference between

crash involved and crash free drivers although the crash involved group did score lower or

this scale.

The 10 high and 10 low crash airmen in the Conger et al (1959) study were selected from

and representative of a pool of 264 subjects. A number of psychometric tests, a psychiatric

examination, and psychological reports were employed to assess the subjects. The data

from these measures were rated by independent judges on number of different dimensions

or variables predicted to be related to crash frequency. An important methodological

precaution was taken in that examiners were not made aware of the crash status of

individual subjects.

It was found that in comparison with non-crash involved subjects, crash repeaters were

significantly less able to control hostility, more indifferent to the rights of others, preoccupied

with fantasy satisfaction, fearful of loss of love and support and less able to tolerate tension.

At least two of these dimensions are directly related to aggression. Little tendency was

51

STAYSAFE 58

observed for crash involved and crash free subjects to belong to any particular clinical

character type (for example, paranoid, schizoid, obsessive etc.).

Conger et al.’s (1957) conclusions are at variance with the findings of McGuire (1956, cited

in McGuire, 1976) who found that scores on the MMPI significantly differentiated his high

and low crash groups. McGuire’s sample size was somewhat larger than the 30 (15 no crash

and 15 high crash) used by Conger et al (1957). It consisted of groups of 67 high crash men

and 100 low crash men. The populations employed by the two studies were apparently

similar one being taken from a naval base and the other from an airbase. Brown and Berdie

(1960) also obtained a significant difference using the MMPI. The MMPI was administered to

male drivers when they were freshmen in college. Six years later their official driving records

were checked and compared to their earlier scores on the MMPI. There were three groups of

drivers. One hundred high crash drivers (five or more violations and three or more crashes)

100 low crash drivers (no violations and no crashes) and a middle group containing drivers

with crashes and violations between the above two. Questionnaire responses from 80

percent of these drivers indicated that differences in mileage between the crash groups were

not significant.

Only two scales of the MMPT were found to distinguish the two groups and only a small

significant correlation was obtained. Brown and Berdie speculate that this may be because

the groups had contained drivers with a number of different personality types. For example

one driver may be extremely hostile his driving behaviour motivated by the desire to show up

other drivers. Another driver may always be in a hurry. The end result will be that elevated

scores on one scale of the MMPI may be cancelled out by depressed scores on the same

scale by other drivers with a different personality profile (Brown and Berdie 1960).

Other studies. A number of studies have obtained results similar to those of Tillman and

Hobbs and Conger et al. Their findings will be reviewed briefly below keeping in mind that a

number of these studies have methodological problems of the type described earlier in this

section. McGuire

(1972, cited in McGuire

1976) administered a variety of tests and

questionnaires to a larger group of people applying for driver’s licences in Mississippi . After

two years, each person’s driving record was investigated by means of an interview. The

group was then divided into validation and cross validation groups of approximately l,363

people. Subjects completed the McGuire Safe Driver Scale and the items were correlated

with crash frequency.

McGuire indicated that crash frequency correlated with aggressiveness, prestige seeking,

and an orientation towards competitiveness. Selzer, Rogers and Kern (1968) studied 96

drivers involved in crashes involving fatalities

(some of which involved the driver) and

compared them with a control group selected from the general driving population. Using chi

square analysis significantly more of the crash involved drivers exhibited paranoid thinking

suicidal or depressive tendencies. While there was no significant difference with regard to

the occurrence of violent behaviour between the two groups, the violence of the control

group was reported to be less severe. Those in the fatal crash group who exhibited any of

the above behaviours had significantly more crashes than their control counterparts.

Australian studies. An Australian study (Williams, Henderson and Mills, 1974) investigated

100 motorists convicted of serious traffic offences in Hobart. Subjects were matched on age,

sex , suburb and driver’s licence type with control subjects. A variety of psychological tests

were administered; a questionnaire regarding biographical background intelligence test

(Standard Progressive Factor Questionnaire), Hostility and Direction of Hostility

Questionnaire, the General Health Questionnaire, and the Eysenck Personality Inventory.

While no significant effects were obtained using the Eysenck Personality Inventory, the

Cattell 16 Personality Factor questionnaire revealed the following: the traffic offender group

52

STAYSAFE 58

were found to be more impulsive, to have a lower social conscience, and were more likely to

have minor psychiatric symptoms such as anxiety and depression.

European studies. The small number of European studies available (Achtnich, 1967, Alonso-

Fernandez, 1966, Burkner, 1975, Burner, 1973, Schenk and Rausche, 1979) appear to have

found similar results to those obtained in the United States. As English translations of these

studies were not available, only a brief description will be provided. Husmann (1967, cited in

Signori and Bowman, 1974) reported that the Szondi test was able to differentiate between

habitually good and bad drivers. Achtnich (1967) using the same test studied 35 habitually

bad drivers and a control group. Achtnich reported that poor drivers exhibited masochistic

tendencies, latent repressed aggression, demand for power, inadequacy, demonstrative

needs, an immature sexual image, and weak egos. A German study (Burkner, 1975)

investigated the validity of the Rosenzweig Picture-Frustration test as a measure of the

aggressiveness of convicted drivers. The results disclosed that convicted drivers were

inclined to direct their aggression towards the environment, whereas the control subjects

tended to constrain their aggression. Burner (1973) proposed that the automobile be viewed

as an extension of self, and characterised crash involved drivers as belonging to one of

three categories: drivers who did not feel subjective risk and drove at speed, drivers who

wished to dominate, and aggressive drivers. Burner suggested that the cause of these

characteristics may be related to either situational or personality variables.

Control of aggression. A number of studies have suggested that inability to control feelings

of hostility and anger or to tolerate tension may contribute to a higher rate of crash

involvement, rather than the strength of aggressive feelings per se (Conger et al, 1959,

Hertz, 1970, Signori and Bowman, 1974). In the study by Conger et al, while the ability to

tolerate tension (measured in psychiatric interview) in crash drivers was significantly lower

than in crash free drivers, the quantity of underlying hostility measure failed to reach

significance. Schuman, Pelz, Ehrlich and Selzer (1967) indicated that the young male drivers

they studied appeared to use the automobile to express impulses. Mayer and Treat (1977)

found that their group of crash involved subjects (18 to 19 year old students) scored

significantly higher on measures of impulsivity. They also found a significant; relationship

between attitudes towards driving to reduce tension or as the author puts it to ‘blow off

steam’ and crash record. Klein (1974, cited in Mayer and Treat, 1977) suggested that poorer

drivers have less control over risk taking impulses while driving and were therefore “more

likely to allow driving to serve as an emotional release” (Mayer and Treat, 1977, p. l). These

findings are consistent with the frustration-aggression hypothesis (Berkowitz, 1962) which

would predict that certain individuals at least would use driving as a means to reduce

tension. Social learning theory would indicate that if the individual has not learned adequate

means of coping with tension, driving may become an outlet for these feelings. Tillman

(1960, cited in Donovan et al, l9683) reported that members of a group therapy session who

had been involved in crashes often reported a feeling of rage while driving their cars,

particularly when they had felt a loss of their sense of identity. Coinciding with the comments

of Burner (1973) the vehicle was seen as an extension of themselves. The medium of driving

in which they have a sense of mastery and power becomes a means of channelling feelings

of anger.

Negative findings. On the other hand, a positive relationship between personality variables

and crash rate has not always been found. A number of studies have not identified

differences between crash involved drivers and their crash free counterparts. A British study

by Quenault (1968a, 1968b) using the Maudsley Personality Inventory found no significant

differences between two groups of 50 subjects, one convicted of careless driving, the other

chosen at random from the same population. Selzer and Vinokur (1974) concluded that life

changes and current levels of personal stress appear to be statistically more important that

any demographic, personality, and social maladjustment variables. Preston and Harris

(1965) administered the Rosenzweig Picture-Frustration test and the Siebrecht Attitude

53

STAYSAFE 58

Scale to 50 drivers hospitalized due to motor vehicle crashes. The Siebrecht Attitude scale

had been used previously and found to be a valid measure of driver attitudes when tested in

driver education programmes. It had not been used to measure differences between crash

free and crash involved drivers. The crash involved drivers were paired with 50 other drivers

on the basis of sex, age, race and education. The two groups were also comparable in terms

of most other socioeconomic factors. None of these control subjects had had a crash in the

previous five years. The crash group had a higher traffic violation rate than the control group.

However, performance on the written tests did not reveal any differences between the two

groups. Neither group was better informed on the road laws which coincides with the

findings of Malfetti and Fine (1962) who observed that their sample of exceptionally safe

drivers did not necessarily have a detailed knowledge of the road traffic regulations. Malfetti

and Fine (1962) concluded that it was not the amount of knowledge that was important but

the way that knowledge was used. Quimby and Watts (1981) using the Cattell 16 Personality

Factor questionnaire found only one personality factor (which measures the degree to which

the person reflects established values) to be correlated with crash history.

Safe professional drivers. Malfetti and Fine’s 1962 study is worthy of note as it appears to be

the only study to investigate in depth the characteristics of known safe professional drivers.

This study’s most serious flaw is the small subject sample used (N = 6). However in spite of

this problem the study provides detailed information

(if only descriptive) on the

characteristics of drivers making up the safe group. The six subjects were obtained through

the National Safety Council Safe Driver Awards. Initially a questionnaire was developed to

obtain biographical and driving record information from 5,244 of the award winners. The

accuracy of information was checked as closely as possible from company records. Malfetti

and Fine developed a profile of the average award winner from these data. The safe driver

reflected a picture of social stability and conformity. The driver is about 59 years of age

married and has two children. He has been a professional driver for approximately 30 years

and has generally worked for the same employer (sometimes two) during this time. The safe

driver has never had a traffic violation, and has had only one preventable and one non

preventable crash as a professional driver.

Drivers were then ranked to discover which of them had the safest driving record. The top

six drivers then underwent a series of psychological and medical tests. The psychological

tests included, the Rorschach, the Thematic Apperception Test, and the Sentence

Completion test. The Semantic Differential test and the Gallup-Thorndike intelligence tests

were also employed. Drivers were found to be of average intelligence.

Psychologically, Malfetti and Fine considered the six drivers to be generally non-aggressive

with a high level of impulse control. They appeared to require a high degree of security in

terms of social and work environments and planned conservatively and cautiously. While

driving, they did not appear to be disturbed by bad manners or poor driving. The drivers

seemed more concerned to deflect possible threats, rather than to retaliate. In terms of

driving, they appeared ‘somewhat compulsive’ about safe driving, cautious and concerned

both for other drivers and the placement of the vehicle on the road. While these data are

only descriptive, it provides an interesting contrast to that obtained by studies investigating

the characteristics of crash repeaters.

Non-aggressive characteristics of crash involved drivers. Several studies have addressed

the question of whether road users frequently involved in crashes are necessarily

responsible for their occurrence. Tillman and Hobbs (1949) argued that those with the

highest crash rates had a greater proportion of blameless crashes than did low crash drivers.

They commented that the habits of some high crash drivers left them unprotected in the

event of the unexpected.

54

STAYSAFE 58

The comments of Tillman and Hobbs are of interest with respect to a series of studies by

Quenault in the 1960s (1967a, 1967b, 1968a, 1968b). Quenault investigated the actual

driving behaviour of drivers who had been convicted of careless driving in the previous three

year period. One group of seven professional drivers (1967b) and two groups of 50 drivers

convicted of careless driving (1967a, 1968a, 1968b) were investigated. These latter groups

of 50 drivers were paired with drivers from the same geographic area who had not been

convicted of careless driving. No significant differences were found between the groups on

the following factors; age, occupation, number of years driving, driving experience, type of

vehicle driven, sex, marital status, and number of times the driving test was taken before

passing. Significant differences were observed on the average annual mileage (careless

driving group travelling twice as far) and the number of crashes encountered by the two

groups

(careless drivers had three times as many crashes and six times as many

convictions). The source of the difference in mileage was attributed to the fact that more of

the convicted drivers used their cars for both business and pleasure than for pleasure alone.

Subjects drove around a twelve mile route in normal traffic conditions under the observation

of two observers neither of whom knew whether the driver belonged to the careless driving

group or the control group.

Quenault (1968a, 1968b) divided her sample into four groups according to their observable

driving behaviour. One of these groups (the dissociated active group) appeared similar to the

aggressive driver described in many other studies. The dissociated active drivers, in

descriptive terms, were more likely to be unpredictable, impatient and edgy. This group did

not appear to be completely aware of some aspects of relevant information when driving.

They took risks actively and consciously and caused near crashes. The other group (the

dissociated passive group) appeared to be totally unaware of what was happening around

them. They did not take active risks, nor did they appear to change their behaviour in the

face of changing situations. Due to this, dissociated passive drivers sometimes found

themselves in situations with which they could not cope, causing near crashes or crashes.

Chi square analysis was used to investigate any differences between the careless driving

group and the control group. The careless drivers were significantly more likely to engage in

risky behaviour. They were less likely to use their rear vision mirrors, more likely to overtake

than be overtaken, use unnecessary manoeuvres and have near crashes. Twenty percent

and 32 percent respectively of the careless drivers were found to belong to the dissociated

active or dissociated passive driver groups respectively. In comparison, only seven percent

and 20 percent respectively of the control group were classified as dissociated active and

dissociated passive driver groups. This data suggest two groups, of drivers one reckless

(whose behaviour may be aggressive and impulsive in appearance) the other passive

(whose behaviour does not imply aggressiveness). It would appear that the careless drivers

may be liable to have crashes either by taking too many risks (in which case these drivers

may cause crashes) or by showing rigid behaviour patterns (instead of directly causing

crashes, perhaps crashes happen to them).

Parry (1968) and Shoham, Rahav, Markovski, Chard and Baruch (1984) have suggested the

existence of a driver group whose behaviour reflects strong feelings of anxiety who may be

liable to road traffic crashes. This driver is not aggressive in the way that has been

discussed in this literature review, he or she does not engage in risky driving and is not

impulsive or sensation seeking. However, the possibility of the existence of two such

separate groups

(impulsive and anxious) remains unexplored for the most part. The

presence of such a group in the crash repeater group would act as a confounding variable in

studies, investigating aggressive traits amongst crash repeaters.

55

STAYSAFE 58

Social characteristic of crash involved drivers

Certain demographic features are associated with increased risk of being involved in a

crash. These include; age less than 25, education of less than 12 years, being a semi skilled

or unskilled worker, single marital status

(Hyman, 1968, cited in Donovan, Marlatt and

Salzburg, 1983). Quimby and Watts (1981) also observed that drivers of high performance

vehicles and high insurance categories who tended to be in a higher socio-economic group

were less involved in crashes than drivers of low performance vehicles. Williams et al (1974)

found that in spite of controlling for similarity in educational standing and home suburb, non-

violation subjects in their study had a higher socio-economic status. Also significant in the

Williams et al study was that more of the offender group reported being taught by a driving

instructor than a family member.

Using chi square analysis, Tillman and Hobbs (1949) found significant differences between

high and low crash groups on a number of social and biographical factors. Crash involved

individuals were more likely to report conflict between parents and that one or both of the

parents was overly strict. Difference in employment record was not significant, although

reports of being fired differed significantly

(with crash involved drivers reporting greater

frequency of being fired). The crash involved drivers appeared to have many acquaintances

but few friends, and generally attempted to be the centre of attention whenever possible.

This is in contrast with the findings of Conger et al (1959), who did not observe significant

differences in friendship patterns between the two crash groups. The high crash drivers in

the Tillman and Hobbs study reported sexual promiscuity significantly more often than their

low crash counterparts. They also showed few feelings of guilt and did not indicate a strong

sense of responsibility towards their families. At school, high crash drivers reported truancy

and discipline problems. Of drivers who had served in the armed forces, the high crash

drivers were more frequently found to be absent without leave than the low crash group.

One problem with the Tillman and Hobbs study is that they failed to use a double blind

procedure. Information regarding the crash record of individuals and their psychological and

social characteristics was collected by the same person who may have had predetermined

impressions of high crash drivers. In addition, other interpretations which constitute value

judgements were also used in the personality profiles of the subjects. For example, terms

such as “filthy language” or “personal dress tended to be eccentric” when describing the high

crash group represent the researchers’ own values. While these descriptions of the drivers

are called personality profiles, it must be remembered that they are not free of the social

norms and values of the experimenter. A ‘culture free’ personality profile may be very difficult

to obtain. This should also be taken into account when examining the data from studies

which have developed their own questionnaires.

As Tillman and Hobbs’ (1949) taxi drivers could not be described as a representative sample

of the driving population, information was also obtained on 96 male, high crash drivers

chosen from the general driving population and compared with 100 control subjects of the

same age and sex with a low crash record from the same population. The names of both

groups were checked against the records of a number of social agencies; the Juvenile court,

the Adult court (for offences not relating to traffic violations), the Family Service bureau, two

children’s aid societies, public health and venereal disease clinics and the local credit

bureau. The data have been reported here in Table 5.1. Information regarding the number of

agencies with which each driver had contact was also obtained. In the high crash group, two

were known to all sources, three to four sources, nine to three sources, sixteen to two

sources and 32 to one source. None of the crash free drivers was known to more than one

agency.

56

STAYSAFE 58

Table 5.1. Percentage contact of crash involved and crash free drivers with social

agencies. Drivers chosen from the general driving population of London, Ontario. (N =

96, crash group, N = 100), crash free group). Adapted from Tillman and Hobbs, 1949).

Credit Bureau Public Health

Adult Court

Juvenile

Known to

and VD Clinic

Court

at least one

Agency

High-

34.3%

14.4%

34.3%

16.6%

66.0%

crash

Drivers

Crash-

6.0%

1.0%

0.0%

1.0%

9.0%

Free

Drivers

The fact that Tillman and Hobbs’ crash-involved drivers were known to so many social

agencies implies a fair degree of disruption in the families of those drivers as well as a

degree of social deviancy. This coincides with the findings of a number of other researchers.

McGuire (1972, cited in McGuire, 1976) observed that in his group of 2,727 drivers the crash

involved drivers were more likely to have a family history of disruption and conflict.

McGuire (1956, cited in McGuire, 1976) compared two groups of 67 male drivers. One group

had admitted to at least one crash in the previous two years for which they had also incurred

a moving violation. The other group had reported that they had not incurred any traffic

violations of any kind since beginning driving. The two groups were matched on mileage in

the previous two years, driving experience, age and marital status. Subjects were

administered the MMPI, the Bell adjustment scale and the Kuder Preference record.

McGuire concluded that the crash involved drivers were less mature, less intellectual in their

tastes and interests, had lower levels of aspiration, were not socially well adjusted and

expressed poor attitudes to the law and driving.

The Mayer and Treat (1977) study investigated 30 crash free (control) and 30 crash involved

(three or more crashes in the last three years) 18 and 19 year olds. The two groups were

matched for age, sex and most importantly annual mileage. A series of short questionnaires

was designed for the purpose. The crash group on Mayer and Treat’s measures of social

maladjustment scored significantly higher on juvenile delinquency, negative 1 attitudes,

antisocial tendencies, and external locus of control (assigning responsibility for events to

sources outside of themselves). Mayer and Treat regarded the measure of citizenship

(voting frequency, church attendance etc.) to be marginally significant (p < 0.10). The

measure of pro-religious values adapted from the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Scale was not

significant. The conclusions reported above are not in keeping with the comments of Parry

(1968) who observed that many drivers admitted undergoing a change when they sat behind

the wheel of a car. Generally good citizens were seen to become selfish, aggressive and

dangerous when behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. However, the above findings indicate

that the individual's general lifestyle reflects upon driving behaviour and subsequent crash

record.

Measures of intelligence. A number of studies have investigated the intelligence of crash

repeaters in an attempt to form an overview of the types of individuals who have repeated

crashes. The findings of these studies will be reported very briefly for this reason. The

studies discussed in this review have not found any significant differences between levels of

57

STAYSAFE 58

intelligence (as measured by intelligence tests) in crash free and crash repeater subjects.

This has been the case, even though a number of different tests have been employed.

These include; Conger et al (1959) who assessed intelligence using two tests (the Wechsler-

Bellevue adult test and the Shipley-Hartford vocabulary scale). Similar results were obtained

by other researchers. For example; Quenault (1968a, b) using the Shipley Abstraction test

and Williams et al (1974) using Standard Progressive Matrices.

High risk of crash driver groups

The previous section investigated the general personality and biographical characteristics of

known crash repeaters. It would appear that certain personality characteristics are common

to the crash repeating group. This group of drivers as a whole represents a high risk (of

crash) group. However, it is possible to subdivide this group into more distinct and

homogeneous groups. These include; people who drive while intoxicated, young drivers and

the mentally ill. It should be noted that these three categories are not distinct but reveal

substantial overlap and can be considered sub-groups of the one high risk group of drivers.

In addition, some high risk drivers do not fit into any of the three categories to be outlined. A

review of each of these categories follows.

Characteristics of drivers who drink and drive

Although drinking would appear to increase the risk of being involved in a crash, it is not a

guarantee that a crash will take place (Gusfield, 1985). Gusfield argues that by “singling out

‘alcohol involvement’ as the cause of crashes, we leave unstated and untested the

hypothesis that without the presence of alcohol the crash would not have occurred and that

alcohol is the only element in the causal process that is capable of being changed” (p. 71).

While the fundamental conclusion of the overwhelming majority of research is not being

challenged (that for every group or set of conditions increased alcohol use increases the risk

of crashes) (Gusfield, 1985), a number of studies have investigated the contention that it is

not alcohol alone which necessarily causes crashes, but alcohol in combination with other

factors such as personality and social background. This may be especially important given

that alcohol may influence aggressive behaviour.

Zylman (1975) in a literature review on the influence of alcohol in traffic crashes argues that

only 30 percent rather than 50 percent of all crashes involve alcohol and that relatively few

alcoholics are high risk drivers. He argues that it is not alcohol alone that leads to crashes

but a combination of personality characteristics

(alienation, hostility, aggression, and/or

transient traumatic experiences) and alcohol. Zylman (1974, cited in Zylman, 1975) suggests

that in 70 percent of crash cases, personality, situational, or environmental factors are more

important than alcohol, even though they may have been drinking. It should be noted at this

point that while these conclusions and those to follow may have some intuitive appeal, they

are not based on sound conclusive evidence. Further detailed research is required before

any of these conclusions can be accepted.

Social-demographic characteristics of drinking drivers. Bradstock, Marks, Forman, Gentry,

Hogelin, Binkin and Trowbridge (1987) report on the socio-demographic characteristics of

drinking drivers based on Behavioral Risk Factor Surveys (BRF) at the U.S. national level.

While BRF Surveys have been reported to be under-estimates of actual rates (Malin et al,

cited in Bradstock et al, 1987), Bradstock et al report that the BRF Surveys are not critically

biased in other ways. BRF Surveys are population based, random telephone surveys. A total

of 22,236 interviews were completed. Drink driving was reported by 6.1 percent of the adults

in the U.S., made up of 9.2 percent (a significant proportion) of males and only 3.3 percent of

women. Fell (1982, cited in Gusfield, 1985) also reports that 85-90 percent of all people

arrested for drunk driving are men. A significant decrease in reported drink driving was found

with age. Eighteen to 24 year olds had the highest levels of drink driving, while the lowest

58

STAYSAFE 58

levels occurred amongst those over 64. No differences were observed between the drink

driving habits of people with no high school and people with higher than high school

education. Men who reported that they tended not to use seatbelts had drink driving rates of

11.3 percent compared with 6.1 percent of men who said that they almost always used seat

belts. Although this difference was significant for men, there was only a trend in this direction

for women. Smokers who consumed more than one packet of cigarettes per day were twice

as likely to report drinking and driving than their non-smoking counterparts. People who

admitted to consuming five or more drinks on at least one occasion in the previous month

(binge drinkers) reported higher proportions of drink driving than those who did not. Chronic

alcohol users (an average of two or more drinks per day) reported higher rates of drink

driving than those who were not chronic drinkers. Significantly more men than women

reported that stress in interpersonal relationships made them more likely to drink and drive.

In addition, individuals who reported that they were more likely to drink and smoke than

exercise in response to stress were significantly more likely to drink and drive. It would

appear that many of the drivers in this study who reported drinking and driving, also engage

in other risk related activities. The levels of risk accepted and the risk assessment of these

individuals may help explain why they engage in drinking and driving activities.

Personality of drinking drivers. In an interesting study, Donovan and Marlatt

(1982)

attempted to identify through the use of cluster analysis personality sub-types of drivers who

drive while under the influence of alcohol. The results will be reported in some detail as the

study provides an example of how various personal factors including aggression, can

interact to influence a behaviour known to be significantly implicated in road crashes. The

subjects were 172 men recruited from an alcohol related education programme. Subjects

were of lower middle class status (determined on the basis of academic and occupational

status) and either married (40.9 percent), divorced (29.8 percent) or separated/divorced

(28.1 percent). Only 24.2 percent of the subjects admitted to having a drinking problem.

However, 99.3 percent of the drivers consumed five to six drinks per occasion at least once

in a while. Forty two percent of the subjects drank 45 or more drinks per month. More than

half of the subjects could have been classified as heavy drinkers (five or more drinks on

more than one occasion a week). The subjects reported an average of fifteen drinking

occasions per month, with about ten of these occasions involving five or more drinks.

Cluster analysis was used to analyse the scores of driving related attitudes, personality and

hostility measures in order to define possible sub-types within this population. Five distinct

groups were identified. The group of drivers with significantly fewer crashes and violations

(Cluster 2) was also found to consume significantly less drinks per occasion than any of the

other groups. In addition this group were considered to be the most well adjusted

emotionally, and to have the lowest levels of depression and driving related aggression or

sensation seeking. They were also significantly less likely to take driving risks. On the other

hand, the group of drivers found to have significantly more crashes and convictions (Cluster

4) than Cluster 2 individuals, in addition to drinking significantly more, were also found to be

significantly younger. They also revealed greater levels of driving related aggression,

competitive speed, sensation seeking, hostility and irritability. However, they displayed only

moderate levels of depression and emotional instability. Another group (Cluster 3) while not

revealing particularly hostile or poor driving attitudes, were characterised by the highest

levels of depression and resentment. They also had low levels of assertiveness and

emotional adjustment. These individuals were found to have significantly fewer crashes and

convictions than Cluster 4 individuals. However, in comparison with Cluster 2 individuals,

drivers within Cluster 3 had significantly more crashes and violations.

In terms of drink driving, Donovan (1980, cited in Donovan, Marlatt and Salzburg, 1983)

reports that the driving-risk index of the drink driving group is about nine times greater than

that of the average driving population. However, it would appear that some individuals may

get into more trouble than others while driving. Those drivers who have a high level of

59

STAYSAFE 58

hostility and who will drink heavily on a particular occasion typify the highest level of overall

driving risk within Donovan and Marlatt’s conceptualisation. Also at high risk are individuals

characterised by depression, resentment and low levels of perceived personal control,

emotional adjustment and assertiveness. Selzer, Payne and Westervelt (1967, cited in

Donovan et al,

1983) commented that the high risk driving behaviours exhibited by

individuals in the above categories while under the influence of alcohol may represent a

method by which to express underlying psychopathology in the absence of more adaptive

coping methods. It would appear that individuals who drink and drive do not represent a

homogeneous group. Selzer, Vinokur and Wilson (1977) note that this may be a reason for

the lack of success of most treatment programmes.

Mozdzierz, Macchitelli, Planek and Lottman (1975) reported significant differences between

alcoholics with high and low crash and violation records on scales of the Guilford-

Zimmerman Temperament survey and on the MMPI. Their results also indicate that it is

possible that two groups of drivers may be present in the driving population. One is a high

risk group characterised by impulsivity, recklessness and irresponsibility. The low crash-

violation group of alcoholics were submissive, and more cautious, with greater concern for

responsibility. Mozdzierz et al concluded that the high crash group may contribute more than

other alcoholics to the crash statistics because of temperament and personality

characteristics. Donovan, Quiesser, Salzburg and Umlauf (1985) compared a group of non-

alcohol involved high crash drivers with a group of alcohol-involved high crash drivers. No

significant differences were observed between these two groups on the personality

measures employed. Both of these groups differed significantly from a group of drivers

chosen from the general population. However, a number of demographic differences were

observed. The alcohol-involved group were significantly older, less well educated and of

lower social position than the high risk group. The high risk group also perceived that they

had less personal responsibility for crashes and had higher amounts of driving related

aggression. These two groups may represent sub groups within the same population of high

risk drivers.

Donovan et al

(1985) consider that alcohol, personality and attitudinal factors may

independently contribute to increased crash risk. The interaction of any of these factors

within the same person may act to increase their influence. Donovan, Marlatt and Salzburg

(1983) present a cognitive-behavioural model of high-risk driving (Figure 1) which attempts

to integrate the factors cited above (drinking behaviour, personality traits, acute emotional

stress, driving related attitudes and the availability of appropriate coping skills) and high-risk

driving. However, while this model is interesting, it is not yet based on firm evidence. Further

research is required in order to validate or invalidate the model. They argue that,

“the individual who appears to be at maximal risk for accident involvement is a

young man characterised by a high level of underlying hostility and an

aggressive disposition who drinks heavily and frequently, and who is deficient

in those social skills involved in the appropriate expression of anger and the

management of stress, frustration or depression.” (p. 415).

When faced with acute emotional distress, such an individual does not have the skills

required to cope with the situation. The stress arising from this situation will be perceived as

a loss of personal control. To these individuals, alcohol and the automobile may represent

methods of coping with these feelings. The model suggests that drinking and driving serve

as a means of regaining or increasing feelings of personal power and control.

60

STAYSAFE 58

Deficient coping skills (Inability to manage Anger, Stress or Depression)

or

Hostile-aggressive trait disposition

and

High quantity-frequency alcohol use

Interpersonal or Intrapersonal Stress

Unsatisfactory resolution of stressful situation

Resultant Increase in Frustration and Tension

Decrease in Self-Efficacy and Personal Control

Drinking with the expectationDriving with the expectation

of tension reduction andof tension reduction and

increased personal controlincreased personal control

Increase in Actual Level of

Covert and Overt Hostility-Aggression

High-Risk Driving with Increased Probability

of Accidents and Violations

Figure 1. Hypothetical cognitive-behavioural model of the influence of social skill

deficits, heavy alcohol use and hostile-aggressive personality on high-risk driving.

From Donovan, Marlatt and Salzburg (1983)

Characteristics of young drivers

The problem of young drivers is essentially a problem limited to young males (Henderson,

1972). Very little research has examined the characteristics of young female drivers,

possibly because they have not proved to be a high risk group.

Pelz and Schuman (1971) have found that young male drivers are more likely to be involved

in motor vehicle crashes between the ages of 16 and 24. Coppin, Ferdun and Kirkham,

(1965, cited in Cummings, 1975) found that for young women drivers, crash rate was

significantly related to driving experience (the number of months the licence had been held).

However, for similarly defined groups of young men, it was age that was found to be

significantly related to crash rate. They concluded that intrinsic components of age (such as

level of maturity) are important factors in crash rate of young male drivers. Pelz and

Schuman (1971) also observed a similar difference in the crash characteristics of young

male and female drivers. Waller (1970, cited in Cummings, 1975) found that young male

drivers with traffic violations and/or crash records were typical of their age group of males.

However, young female drivers involved in crashes or with violations were not typical of

crash free female drivers.

The role of alcohol

Cameron (1982) indicates that a large proportion of alcohol and non-alcohol involved

crashes involve drivers under the age of twenty-five. This is the case even when differential

exposure to traffic crashes has been controlled for. In a recent review, Mayhew, Donelson,

Bierness and Simpson (1986) concluded that young drivers who drive after drinking had a

61

STAYSAFE 58

greater risk of crash involvement than older drinking drivers, although the young drivers were

less likely to drink and drive. Mayhew et al make the suggestion that the higher crash risk of

young drivers may be due to inexperience with drinking and/or driving. However, they also

consider feasible the possibility that personal and social characteristics may contribute to

increased risk.

Cameron (1982) also noted, despite limited data being available, that behavioural correlates

of drinking and driving problems indicate some association between feelings of rebellion,

hostility and alienation and an increase in the number of traffic violations and crashes.

Jessor (1983, cited in Tonkin, 1987) suggests engaging in risky behaviours in general serves

to help “take control of one’s life, express opposition to adult authority. . deal with anxiety,

frustration, inadequacy”

(p.

216) in addition to being pleasurable to the young person.

Earlier work on the role of personality and social factors in crash causation (Schuman, Pelz,

Ehrlich and Selzer, 1967) revealed that a strong relationship did exist between exposure

(number of miles driven in the previous year) and crash experience. However, motivational

factors were also found to be important. Schuman et al found that 40 percent of 16 to 20

year old drivers they studied reported driving to blow off steam after arguments. However,

reports of this behaviour became less frequent with increasing age. Feelings of anger and

frustration were also reported by young drivers in response to obstacles (for example,

repeated red lights) when driving. However, these feelings also declined with age.

Schuman et al (1967) also reported that the time between ages 16 and 22 was a period of

frustration and anxiety in which the motor vehicle was perceived as an outlet for the

expression of these feelings.

Drivers with high crash rates in the Schuman et al study were also more likely to own their

own vehicle, be employed rather than attend school or college, have only a high school

education and be of lower socio-economic status. Poor school adjustment, low academic

achievement, and number of cigarettes smoked were among the better predictors of crash

frequency (Harrington, 1972). However, the degree to which crashes could be predicted on

the basis of biographical information was very low. The conclusions drawn by these studies

are consistent with those made by others (Beamish and Malfetti, 1962, Pelz and Schuman,

1968).

Symbolic status of motor vehicles

Klein (1972) hypothesises that for adolescents, the car symbolises power, autonomy and

status. Young men learn that ‘real men’ are tough, ingenious and prepared to take risks.

However, their freedom is severely restricted by parents, schools and the law. The motor

vehicle may be the only area in which the young driver can be in control (Klein, 1972). It has

been suggested that the idea of obtaining a driver’s licence is a marker of transition into the

adult world (Klein, 1972, Tonkin, 1987). Carlson and Klein (1970) hypothesised that the

familial socialization of young male drivers may be of significant influence in forming driving

behaviour over institutional socialization. The son learns specific driving behaviours from

watching his father drive. They also learn what Carlson and Klein have called the familial

‘lifestyle’ which includes attitudes to authority, conformity, aggression, self perception,

relationship to the social environment, the concept of status, perceptions regarding the

status of automobiles. The values adopted by a given family do not necessarily correspond

to those of society in general. Institutional socialization includes schools, police, and court

system through which society’s values are taught and enforced. These institutions attempt to

encourage behaviour seen as socially desirable - in this instance good driving behaviour. In

support of this hypothesis, fathers of sons with higher conviction rates were also found to

have significantly more convictions.

62

STAYSAFE 58

Other groups at risk: The mentally ill

It has been already established that the rates of suicide by motor vehicle crash are most

likely relatively small (less than 5 percent) in comparison with other factors. However, as a

group the mentally ill would appear to represent a high risk sub group of the driving

population. It is difficult to ascertain with certainty the relative rates of crashes amongst the

mentally ill and many of the studies in the area have not met some of the evaluation criteria.

As with a number of the studies on personality and crashes, studies investigating the crash

rate of the mentally ill have failed to implement basic methodological controls such as

controlling for distance travelled, or variations in risk. Gibbens (1968) in a book on medical

aspects of fitness to drive comments that, except for special circumstances, there is little

evidence that a psychotic illness increases crash risks. He also comments that mental

illness of all types tends to reduce the individual’s interest and activity. Such patients would

be less likely to drive and would therefore be less exposed to crash risk. These thoughts are

echoed by Henderson (1971) who states that at any one time the numbers of mentally ill

people driving motor vehicles is likely to be relatively small. However, as Henderson (1971)

points out, this observation does not rule out the argument that mental illness may be related

to crashes. Indeed, there is some evidence available to support this position.

Noyes (1985) states that within the sub-group of mentally ill patients the risk of crashes is

higher than in the general driving population. Waller (1965, cited in Noyes, 1985) found that

the crash rate of mentally ill people known to the California Department of Motor Vehicles

had twice as many crashes than the age adjusted sample without known illness. Crancer

and Quiring (1970) found that 915 drivers hospitalised for suicidal gestures in the years

1963, 1964, 1965 had a significantly higher crash and violation rate than a comparison group

of drivers from the general population. The group also had significantly more violations for

drunken driving, reckless driving, driving while suspended, and negligence.

Eelkema, Brosseau, Koshnick and McGee (1970) found that discharged mental hospital

patients as a group had a higher crash and violation rate per hundred driver years than a

comparison group from the normal driving population. Psychotic and psychoneurotic

patients had a greater crash ratio, although after they had been discharged from hospital,

their crash rate was found to be lower than that of the matched comparison group. Buttiglieri

and Guenette (1967, cited in Noyes, 1985) also observed that the rate of crashes tended to

decrease after release from hospital. As Eelkema et al (1970) did not control for distance

travelled, it is unclear whether the decrease in crashes was due to a decrease in the

distance driven by mentally ill patients after hospitalisation or some other factor. Patients

with personality disorders had the highest crash rates and showed little improvement after

release from hospital. However, these results were also confounded as the number of miles

driven was not controlled. Single vehicle crashes were almost solely found amongst the

experimental groups.

Type of mental illness

A number of studies have found that not all categories of psychiatric patients are over-

involved in crashes. Increased crash rates were found amongst neurosis sufferers (Crancer

and Quiring, 1969, cited in Noyes, 1985) and people with personality disorders (Eelkema et

al,

1970). Schizophrenics, on the other hand, did not differ significantly from the general

population (Crancer and Quiring, 1969, cited in Noyes, 1985). A number of studies have

also observed that alcohol problems are also implicated with substantial number of mentally

ill people

(Crancer and Quiring, 1970, Eelkema et al, 1970). Alcohol abuse amongst

psychiatric patients may make a considerable contribution to crash rate and therefore tends

to confound attempts to assess crash rates. A Finnish study has indicated that after

controlling for drug abuse, patients with psychiatric histories may have a similar crash rate to

the rest of the population (Maki and Linnoila, 1976).

63

STAYSAFE 58

Predicting aggressive drivers

The potential value of research into the personality and social characteristics of problem

drivers lies in establishing effective means of predicting crash liability. It is currently possible

to identify certain groups in the community who are at greater risk of being involved in motor

vehicle crashes than the general community. It can also be said that, there may be some

consistency in the personality traits of multiple crash drivers. However, there appears to be

no personality test which has been found to predict individual crash liability satisfactorily,

before the event.

Interview techniques

A number of the studies discussed in the previous section utilized psychiatric interviews in

attempting to distinguish between crash free and crash involved drivers. This technique

represents an after-the-event method of detecting personal factors affecting motor vehicle

crashes. Hertz (1970) argues that the structured goal directed psychiatric interview may

prove a useful diagnostic tool for the detection of personal factors influencing crash

frequency. However, such techniques are extremely difficult to standardise adequately as

the training and personal qualities of the interviewer are also crucial. An interview may lead

to incorrect conclusions if important information is not extracted or if that information is not

adequately or properly interpreted (Anastasi, 1982). Interview techniques must therefore be

considered extremely limited in terms of individual crash prediction, and would be difficult to

apply on a widespread basis.

Personality tests

While a number of studies have produced positive results in identifying the personality

characteristics of crash involved drivers, the methodological problems of these studies

prevent any firm conclusions being drawn. These problems have included small sample

sizes and inadequate control for variations in risk and exposure. Research in the area of

aggression has included few cross validation studies. The study by Conger et al (1957,

1959) is one of the few to discuss the results of cross validation studies. As a consequence,

the literature does not reflect a systematic development, with researchers in general

applying either different established personality tests or developing their own tests. These

tests have either been developed on the basis of previous research, using factors the

researchers considered may influence driving behaviour, or using sub-scales from already

established tests. As most of these studies do not appear to have been cross validated, it is

not possible to judge which measures could be successful in discriminating aggressive

drivers. Of the established tests a number of scales on the MMPI were found to discriminate

between high and low crash drivers in a number of different studies. The MMPI would

appear to have been one of the most successfully employed tests, although it failed to

survive in cross validation by Conger et al (1957). The 16 personality factor questionnaire

was found to significantly discriminate between high and low crash drivers on at least one

scale in two different studies (Quimby and Watts, 1981, Williams, Henderson and Mills,

1974). McGuire (1976) reported success in cross validation with his Safe Driver Scale. Of

the other personality tests employed in the studies discussed, they would appear to be

balanced between positive and negative results.

These tests are indirect measures and as a consequence establishing their validity is

difficult. As these characteristics have been identified as personality traits, they imply a

certain amount of stability over time (Williams, Henderson and Mills, 1974). However, much

of the behavioural variance has been found to be accounted for by the situation rather than

the personality traits. An important question in view of this result would be to ask what is the

personality test actually measuring.

This area of research has been characterised by inadequately designed and conducted

studies. The validity of much of the research must therefore be questioned. Many authors

64

STAYSAFE 58

have levelled similar criticisms at studies of personality characteristics of drivers (Conger et

al, 1959, Valentine et al, 1977, Williams et al, 1974). A few of these studies (Conger et al,

1957,

1959, Tillman and Hobbs,

1949) have been criticised as they were based on

statistically extreme samples. The findings may therefore not generalise to the larger

population. While the term accident proneness with all its conceptual difficulties, has for the

most part been put aside, the research presented above continues to embody the notion that

some individuals, by virtue of their personal characteristics, are more likely to be involved in

crashes than others. These personal characteristics may be permanent and/or temporary,

due to emotional stress and/or familial upbringing, alcohol and social values.

Henderson (1971, cited in Valentine et al, 1977) maintains that the study of the pathological

characteristics of crash involved drivers is not productive as these traits appear to change

with time, age and situation and do not aid in effective crash prevention. The idea that more

aggressive people who display their aggressiveness in the way that they drive will have

more crashes than non-aggressive people has intuitive appeal. However, these studies do

not appear to add significantly to our collective knowledge about the causes of crashes.

Concluding discussion

It would appear from the literature that, while considerable research has been conducted into

the role of aggression in driving, few firm conclusions can be drawn. The problems

experienced in the research of driver aggression can be attributed, in part, to the complexity

and vagueness of some of the concepts involved. Both the dependent and the independent

variables are difficult to define (Lucas, 1970). Crash and violation frequency are often

difficult to establish accurately due to incomplete official crash records. In addition the

criteria applied to distinguish crash repeating drivers and drivers with low crash frequency

has varied considerably between studies making comparison difficult. The relevant personal

and social characteristics of drivers in relation to the occurrence of driver aggression have

appeared to be difficult to identify. In addition, measurement of these factors is necessarily

indirect. The instruments used in attempts to measure the underlying factors related to

driver aggression are notorious for their lack of validity and reliability. None of the measures

employed have been shown to be able to predict crash involvement on an individual basis.

Drivers at high risk of crash involvement exhibit a broad range of personal and social

characteristics. It is possible to divide this overall group into more distinct sub-groups.

These categories are not mutually exclusive but reveal substantial overlap. They include

people who drive under the influence of alcohol, young drivers (particularly young male

drivers) and possibly the mentally ill. Some drivers do not fall into any of the above

categories of high risk drivers identified. Drinking drivers and young drivers are known to

have crash and violation rates above that of the normal driving population. The evidence,

although not conclusive, suggests that the high crash rates of these drivers are significantly

related to hostility and aggression. In particular the suggestion has been made that some of

these individuals are less able to control aggressive impulses or tolerate tension.

The crash rate of young drivers tends to decrease with increasing age. A number of studies

have suggested that this results not only from increasing experience but also from increasing

maturity. It is postulated that these young drivers feel less need to engage in dangerous and

risky driving as they grow older. Alcohol plays a significant role in motor vehicle crashes and

is to some extent a confounding variable in studies on aggression in driving making the

differentiation of the effects of personality and alcohol difficult. This point has also been

noted by other reviewers (Valentine et al, 1977). There is now evidence that alcohol may

65

STAYSAFE 58

influence the occurrence of aggressive behaviour. The mentally ill would also appear to a

group at risk in the driving community. A proportion of this problem may relate to attempted

suicides by motor vehicle crashes. However, probably less than five percent (most likely 2

to 3 percent) of crashes can be attributed to attempted suicides (Noyes, 1985). It also

appears likely that the mentally ill are less likely to drive than other groups in the community

and therefore the proportion of these drivers involved in crashes is somewhat reduced as a

result.

The general high risk group of drivers has also been described as having high levels of

hostility and aggression. Of these high risk drivers, a very small number may be ?sufficiently

disturbed or deviant to attempt suicide, murder, or malicious damage on the road, although

no clear statistics have been produced to verify this statement. Evidence that the rates of

road crashes are related to the crime statistics of the country is inconclusive. While there is

a volume of research which concludes that aggression plays a significant role in increased

crash and violation rates, as with drinking drivers and young drivers, firm conclusions are not

warranted. Many of the studies in this area have been beset by methodological problems

related to;

No single personality trait has been identified which satisfactorily distinguishes the high

crash driver from the low or crash free driver. Personal factors which have been identified

as associated with motor vehicle crashes include generally high levels of aggression and

hostility, competitiveness, less concern for others, poor driving attitudes, driving for

emotional release, impulsiveness and risk taking. A background of social disruption and

deviancy appears to be more common amongst high crash and/or violation drivers who have

exhibited aggressive attitudes or responses.

While people who exhibit such behaviour patterns are undesirable as drivers, members of

the ‘normal’ driving population are also seen to exhibit aggressive (looking) behaviour. It has

been postulated that the motives of drivers do not only consist of a desire to get from A to B

in the safest possible way. Drivers may engage in risky driving practices in order to fulfil

these other motives. These motives include those suggested above in relation to crash

repeating drivers (thrill seeking, desire for speed, having fun, discharging tension) but may

also include others such as attempting to enter a busy traffic stream, keeping up with the

traffic stream, getting somewhere more quickly, frustration or bad temper.

Involvement of crash repeaters

The attention focussed on the role of aggression in driving and the personality

characteristics of repeated crash and conviction-involved drivers appears unwarranted given

the likely contribution of these factors in crash causation. Aggressive or

(without the

assumption of intent) risk taking behaviour would appear to have a high profile in terms of

observable on-the-road behaviour. Subjective experience would indicate that dangerous

driving is quite frequent. The authorities regularly complain in the media about the poor

attitudes of drivers in general (see for example The Age, Saturday, 10 October, 1987) and

the role they may play in crash causation. Even if it were agreed that aggressive personality

traits (hostility toward authorities and other drivers) are a causal link in repeated crashes

and/or violations, the effect of removing these individuals from the driving population would

appear to be comparatively small. That crash repeaters constitute a small proportion of the

driving population has been known for many years. Forbes (1939, cited in McGuire, 1976)

66

STAYSAFE 58

found that a small percentage of the population may have a high proportion of the crashes in

one time period. However, in the next period of time, that same percentage of crash

repeating drivers will be largely composed of different individuals.

Hampson (1984) cites a 1975 study by Sabey and Staughton who report that of the human

factors identified as being involved in road traffic crashes only 0.6 percent can be attributed

to frustrated or aggressive behaviour. The less strong definition we proposed which

encompassed driving acts aggressive in appearance, such as reckless driving or

irresponsibility, accounted for only 1.6 percent of the human factors identified as contributing

to motor vehicle crashes.

Burg (1970) in a six year study of the crash and violation rates of 7841 drivers found that the

majority of drivers involved in crashes had never been involved in crashes before. It should

be noted that only California Department of Motor Vehicles records were used. These

records are known to be an underestimate of the true number of crashes (Burg, 1970). The

Robertson and Baker (U.S.) study (1975) found that only six percent of drivers involved in

fatal crashes had more than eight convictions in all the years prior to the crash. Burg (1970)

found that the removal of all drivers with one or more crashes over a three year period would

eliminate

19.8 percent of drivers and

29.6 percent of the crashes occurring in the

subsequent three year period. Eliminating drivers with two or more crashes over a three

year period would dispose of only 3.9 percent of drivers and 8.0 percent of crashes. The

elimination of drivers with three or more crashes (0.8 percent of drivers) would prevent only

2.0 percent of crashes. Burg concludes that traffic safety efforts would be more usefully

directed at the so called ‘normal driver’. As indicated above, it would appear that the

composition of the crash repeater group is not constant from year to year. Henderson

(1971) determined from Burg’s data that “if a three year, triple crash involvement crash

history is used as a predictor of crash involvement for the next three years, the prediction

would be correct in less than 50 percent of cases” (p. 46). A study by Peck, Coppin and

McBride (1967, cited in Robertson and Baker, 1975) found that the crash population from

year to year is largely a changing one.

“Of those drivers who were crash involved in 1961

and 1962, 86.8 percent were crash free in 1963. Conversely, the previously crash free

drivers accounted for the vast majority of the crashes in 1963” (p. 121).

Foundations of aggressive driving

Any initiatives to attempt to cope with aggression in driving must necessarily depend on the

theoretical approach adopted. While few researchers would dispute that a biological base to

aggressive behaviour exists in humans as well as in other animals, such an approach would

appear to offer little hope to road safety authorities attempting to combat aggressive driving.

There can be little doubt that there is a substantial learning component (at least in the ways

and situations in which aggression is expressed) to aggressive behaviour.

A number of researchers have attempted to relate aggressive driving behaviour to theories

of aggression. Whitlock

(1971) speculated that aggressive behaviour exhibited by

apparently normal adults may be accounted for in the terms of violation of perceived

territorial rights and the Lorenzian view that humans have a drive for aggression. Where

once, aggression was used in defence of the home, as the numbers of car owners increase,

aggression may come to occur “in furtherance of the driver’s sense of property rights”

(Whitlock, 1971, p. 133). In particular, Witlock suggests that, to the young male driver, who

in general owns little real estate, the motor vehicle becomes a “symbol of power and

prestige, a part of one’s territory to be defended by aggressive displays whenever its

integrity is threatened or breached”

(p.

133).

Whitlock suggests that the territorial

explanation for aggressive driving may relate more to members of the ‘normal’ driving

population than the deviant driver who may be unable or unwilling to control his or her

67

STAYSAFE 58

aggression. Another possible explanation offered by Whitlock (1971) is that the automobile

essentially isolates the driver from other road users. In a sense then, many of society’s

restrictions are diminished. In addition, the design of the automobile offers “a certain amount

of immunity from retaliatory action” (Whitlock, 1971, p. 128). Drivers may therefore feel less

restrained about revealing aggressive dispositions.

Other researchers (Naatanen and Summala, 1976) have suggested that the frustration-

aggression hypothesis may account for the occurrence of aggressive behaviour in some

instances. For example, a number of researchers have suggested that the need for impulse

expression (for example, Selzer and Payne, 1962), or the inability to control hostility (for

example, Conger et al, 1959) may cause drivers to use their motor vehicles to reduce such

tension. The frustration-aggression hypothesis would propose that individuals need to

discharge feelings of frustration. An individual who has not been taught appropriate ways of

coping with frustration or distress may indulge in dangerous and aggressive driving in a futile

attempt to take control. Given the often frustrating nature of driving, it may not be surprising

that some drivers are aggressive in response to the difficult traffic situations they face every

day.

Most of the speculation relating to the basic causes of aggression in driving supports the

notion that social norms and values play an important role. In view of this, the next section

will be devoted to a discussion of the role of society in crash causation. It may be that social

values influence attitudes toward aggressive driving and behaviour. Learning may also

influence the situations and the means by which feelings of frustration and aggression are

expressed. However, all of these comments must remain speculative in the absence of

conclusive evidence. The bases of aggression in driving are highly complex and most likely

occur as a result of a combination of biological and social factors. At present, the comments

relating aggression in driving to highly complex theories of behaviour must be judged to be

preliminary and highly speculative. Detailed research is required before any conclusions

could be drawn.

The role of society

It was earlier argued that society for the most part regards people who break the law as

deviants. However, this does not appear to extend to people convicted of motor vehicle of

fences (Clifford and Marjoram, 1978). It was postulated that the legislation against traffic

offences does not originate in prevailing norms of the society. Henderson (1971) has argued

that countermeasures initiated to prevent dangerous driving habits must be sanctioned by

society if they are to be effective. Preventive measures may have decreased effectiveness if

people in general do not regard traffic offences as criminal behaviour. Hampson (1984)

comments that it seem likely that society as a whole determines the level of safety margins.

He goes on to argue that society encourages risk taking and competitiveness. Henderson

(1972) remarks that the high crash rate of young male drivers is related to the essential

structure of society and the high social values placed on speed and mobility. Any advances

in alleviating this problem requires reaching some understanding of society as a whole.

Henderson (1972) and Klein (1976) both comment that the influence of the mass media on

driving behaviour and its role in counteracting educational efforts had never been properly

researched. The motor vehicle has been claimed to have symbolic meaning, for instance, it

represents freedom and privacy (Slater, 1970, cited in Klein, 1976). The advertising of motor

vehicles with few exceptions appears to reflect social values other than those of driving as a

means of transport. Advertisements emphasise status, speed, excitement and freedom to

name just a few. Henderson (1972) provides an example from a motoring magazine;

“And the next move goes something like this: the guy in the front slaps on the

brakes going into a tight left hander. But there’s no need to brake the..., flick

68

STAYSAFE 58

back to third, the tacho flips to 4700 and the tail slides out. Hold it with

fingertip correction on the wheel, a little more pressure on the throttle. The

clock says 60, and you're around, through and gone - and Fred’s behind you

still on the brakes...” (p. 17).

Henderson (1971) above argued that society must come to see drunken driving as socially

deviant as ‘urinating in George Street’. This must also be the case if attempts are to be

made to decrease the frequency of aggressive, competitive driving behaviour. In Klein’s

(1971) view, the individual’s behaviour and experiences may have powerful effects on his or

her driving behaviour. If as a society we emphasise values such as competitiveness and

aggressiveness, individual initiative, autonomy, challenge, excitement and risk taking, then

all facets of behaviour including driving will reflect these values.

Eron and Huesmann (1984) argue that they have found a direct positive relationship

between aggression and traditional masculine attitudes (which involve aggressiveness).

They argue that social learning plays an important role in reinforcing aggressive behaviour

patterns. As aggressive behaviours learned early in the child’s life, this would take place

primarily in the home. They go on to argue that if children (regardless of sex) learn prosocial

ways of solving problems, they will be much less likely to adopt aggressive tactics. Given

that (as the frustration-aggression hypothesis would propose) individuals need to discharge

feelings of frustration, an individual without the requisite skills to come to terms with

frustrating or upsetting events, may find alternative outlets for these feelings (such as risky

driving) in order to cope.

The findings of Eron and Huesmann are closely related to Carlson and Klein’s (1970)

conclusion that driving behaviour is learned primarily through the home and not through

external institutions. Carlson and Klein argue that driver education

(a major form of

institutional socialisation) will “only be effective in so far as it is able to modify inadequate

familial socialisation” (p. 24). In their judgement, education in general has not resolved this

problem.

The above comments on the role society plays in the development of aggressive driving

behaviour must remain, as with the earlier comments on the foundations of aggressive

behaviour, in the realm of theory. Further detailed research is required to examine the

relative role of biological and social factors in the foundations of aggression in driving. Until

that time these comments must remain speculative.

Screening drivers

One of the first possible approaches to coping with aggression in driving may be to screen

drivers suspected of having problems (including mental illness and drivers under emotional

stress). Noyes (1985) argues that physicians would be able to aid in the prevention of motor

vehicle crashes if they were aware of the psychiatric factors related to impaired driving

ability. Nathan and Turner (1974, cited in Noyes, 1985) screened 100 drunk drivers, fifteen

of whom required immediate psychiatric intervention. Noyes argues that patients commonly

consult physicians in times of stress. The physician needs therefore to be aware that

personal crises may result in an increase in physical danger. Gibbens (1968) suggests that

physicians be alert for drivers suffering from mental breakdown and for signs of mental

deterioration in elderly patients if they have any unexplained crashes. Gibbens also argues

that drivers of heavy goods vehicles arid public service vehicles should not be permitted to

drive if they have suffered a psychotic breakdown, or have personality disorders. However,

these drivers may be detected only after they have already experienced a crash. A relatively

small literature proposes that mentally ill drivers should be discouraged if not prevented from

driving.

69

STAYSAFE 58

Modifying driver behaviour

Not surprisingly, attempts to modify driver attitudes and behaviour have concentrated on

enforcement and education. Naatanen and Summala (1976) present a strong argument for

the role of motivational factors in driving. A large motivational component of safe driving

behaviour would imply that modification of human behaviour may be productive in

decreasing crash rates (Henderson, 1971). However, attempts to alter driver behaviour have

been largely unsuccessful

(Henderson,

1971). The motivational components of driver

behaviour are highly complex. It would almost certainly not be fruitful to suggest (as did

Brown and Berdie, 1960) that crashes could be reduced simply by calling to the attention of

the individual that he or she has a pattern of characteristics associated with high crashes.

Attempts to influence driver motivation include enforcement programs and driver education

programs (in the form of mass media campaigns and high school programs).

Enforcement

Enforcement in learning theory terminology may be viewed as a negative reinforcer, a

stimulus that a person would attempt to avoid (Shinar, 1978). The laboratory and road

environments are quite different. Avoidance training may be effective in the laboratory,

however, on the road may be less so (Shinar, 1978). According to Shinar the reason for this

is primarily because feedback and negative reinforcement in the laboratory can be fairly

immediate. However, on the road, due to limitations in funding, the monitoring of driver

behaviour by the authorities is not systematic. As a result, much dangerous driving may go

unnoticed and therefore unpunished.

Brown and Copeman (1973) argue that greater attention should be given to the design of

sanctions as a method of conveying societal values. “Ideally sanctions would delineate the

bounds of acceptable behaviour” (Brown and Copeman, 1973, p. 243). They also argue that

the strength of sanctions should correspond to the driver’s perception of the relative

seriousness of the offence. The concept of enforcement implies that individual drivers are

able to change their behaviour in the direction desired by society. Henderson (1971) also

argues that to be effective, countermeasures such as enforcement must be sanctioned by

society. However, there is evidence that the driver groups at whom many of these

enforcement programs are directed will not change their behaviour regardless of the strength

of the threat of punishment (Henderson, 1971). Henderson argues that ‘deviant’ drivers form

a sub group the members of which perceive advantages in their driving behaviour. These

drivers therefore do not wish to change their behaviour. Robertson and Baker (1975) present

evidence that a percentage of drivers who have their licences suspended, revoked or

refused may continue to drive. Five percent of 1447 drivers involved in fatal crashes in

Maryland in 1970 and 1971 were found to be driving without a valid licence. In addition, of

294 people who had at some time been denied a licence, 23 percent were found to have

received at least one conviction for a motoring offence during the time their licence had been

suspended. Ross (1976, cited in Shinar, 1978) has indicated that no changes in the rate of

fatal crashes involving drunken driving were observed after a law leading to automatic

imprisonment and loss of driver’s licence was introduced.

Driver education

A large literature exists in relation to driver education, however, only a relatively small

selection would appear to be directed at influencing driver attitudes and consequentially

modifying potential aggressive tendencies.

70

STAYSAFE 58

In view of the work of Naatanen and Summala (1976), Hampson (1984) suggested that

driver education might be able to emphasise the fallibility of drivers, rather than its present

role of training to increase driver skill. “Public education by mass media might direct attention

toward informing drivers of the errors they are likely to commit, and teach them to adjust

their safety margins accordingly”. Henderson (1971) remarks that society retains a basic

faith in the power of education to influence human behaviour. The area of driver education

can be divided roughly into three sections; driver education courses for learner adults or high

school students, driver education for those identified as problem drivers, and mass media

campaigns.

Driver education courses

A large amount of research has been conducted on the value of driver education and

improvement courses, in particular high school driver programs. However, the majority of

this research. has been methodologically poor (Shinar, 1978). Conley and Smiley (1976)

found that the type of driver education (high school, commercial, no formal education) the

individual had undertaken failed to significantly differentiate crash and/or violation involved

drivers and drivers without crashes or violations. Similar results were also obtained by

Coppin, Ferdun and Peck (1965, cited in Shinar, 1978) and Asher and Dodson (1971).

Harrington’s (1972) results relating to driver education differed from these only on the basis

of conviction rate (which decreased) and crash rate (which decreased for females only).

The influence of driver improvement programs on the attitudes held by drivers was

investigated by Edwards and Ellis (1976). They administered the Siebrecht Attitude Scale to

drivers who participated in the Texas driver improvement training program and compared

driving performance (as measured by the number of crashes and violations in the period of

twelve months before and after the program). Only male drivers between the ages of 17 and

24 showed any improvement in attitudes after they had been through the driving program.

This group also had a significant decrease in the number of violations incurred after the

training program. However, no difference was observed in their crash rate.

Peck and Harano (1973, cited in Peck, 1976) concluded that warning letters, group meetings

and individual counselling sessions had the effect of reducing the frequency of traffic

violations amongst negligent drivers for approximately six months. After this time, the effects

were found to dissipate. McGuire and Kersh (1969, cited in Henderson, 1972) found that the

most improvement in crash rate occurred when crash repeating drivers were given

interviews with trained driver analysts who used a non-punitive approach.

Fear arousal

Fear arousal has also been used in attempts to influence driver behaviour. Legarde, Lubman

and Hartnett (1971) and Beach (1966, cited in Lucas, 1970) studied the effects of fear

arousal on mood and attitude. LeGarde et al. (1971) after showing a highway safety scare

film found an increase in aggression, depression and anxiety after the film had been viewed

as measured by the Nowlis Mood Adjective Checklist. While female subjects were more

affected than male subjects, they returned to pre-film mood levels more quickly than male

subjects. Beach (1966, cited in Lucas, 1970) hypothesised that high-threat messages will fail

to cause an observable attitudinal or behavioural change because drivers are motivated to

avoid the message and its recommendations. Beach showed a film with either low-threat

(policeman performing routine duties) or high-threat (shots of dead and dying bodies near

wrecked vehicles, complete with sound track) insertions. Attitudes were measured before

and after the films were viewed. No significant differences in attitude were obtained between

either group after they had viewed either the low-threat insertion or the high-threat insertion.

However, when both groups were considered as a whole, certain attitude changes were

observed particularly those mentioned negatively in the films.

71

STAYSAFE 58

Publicity campaigns

Publicity campaigns which have attempted to alter or influence driver attitudes have met

failure in reducing crash rates

(Wilde,

1971, cited in Naatanen and Summala, 1976).

Naatanen and Summala (1976) suggest that the reason for this failure is that a causal

relationship between driver attitudes and crashes has yet to be firmly established. Grieg

(1970, cited in Naatanen and Summala, 1976) suggests for example, that a poor attitude

toward the police may be a result of having been convicted for an offence. Poor driving

attitudes and subsequent behaviour tend to satisfy the driver’s ‘extra motives’ in addition to

reflecting a lack of subjective risk on the part of the driver. Finally, the views about correct

driving behaviour espoused by traffic safety experts may not be the same as those in the

general community or sections of the community. In addition, as the driver already feels safe

on the road, cooperating with traffic safety campaigns brings little personal gain (Naatanen

and Summala, 1976). The behaviour promoted by such campaigns also require the

expending of effort for little perceived gain (Naatanen and Summala, 1976) and which in the

majority of cases offer no immediate pay offs for engaging in the behaviour.

Dissuading drivers from drinking

Given that alcohol has been implicated in aggressive driving, reduction in drinking behaviour

may produce some benefit. In recent years, increasing attention has been given by

authorities to the possibility of using informal social controls in order to prevent drinkers from

driving (Pandiani and McGrath, 1986). The Presidential Commission on Drunk Driving (1983,

cited in Pandiani and McGrath, 1986) underscored the importance of informal interpersonal

social controls. Pandiani and McGrath suggest that public education campaigns in

interpersonal techniques should be designed to encourage bystanders to attempt to

convince drinkers not to drive. Pandiani and McGrath found that bystanders were already

more likely to attempt to dissuade women and drinkers between the ages of 46 and 61 from

driving. The degree of intoxication and mood also influenced the likelihood of intervention.

Drivers who had reported feeling anxiety or fear at the time indicated attempts had been

made to dissuade them from driving. Much smaller numbers of those who had felt sad,

happy, angry or had reported no predominant mood had indicated that someone had

attempted to convince them not to drive. Henderson (1971) argues in relation to public

education concerning drunks and drink driving that research has failed to consider social and

cultural undertones in drinking and driving customs.

Directions for future research

As the problems of aggression in driving have been judged to be closely related to the basic

value structure of society, any attempts to decrease the level of such behaviour may require

a broader understanding of a range of societal values. Donelson (1985) has argued that

research-based knowledge and understanding of the sociocultural factors that play an

important role in the causation of alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes could provide a

“basis for developing a technology of social change”

(p.

89). An approach has been

developed by the Injury Research Foundation of Canada, which encompasses the concept

of community based initiatives to drinking and driving. This may also be the case for areas

relating to aggression in driving. Other writers (Donovan et al, 1983, Henderson, 1971,

Wilde, 1973) have also argued that the sociocultural context requires further investigation in

order to understand the personal processes at work in crash causation. However, as Klein

(1971) comments, while at the individual level, many people may prefer to emphasise co-

operation rather than aggressive competition, given the present state of education and the

mass media, such changes will take a long time to be adopted by society as a whole. In view

of this, more research is also required to identify the reasons for the general lack of

effectiveness of driver education and publicity campaigns.

72

STAYSAFE 58

A discussion of risk taking was undertaken in this review because the argument has been

made that aggression and risk taking are closely related. It was recognised that risk taking

may not be indicative of intent to cause hazardous driving conditions, even though it may

have the appearance of aggressive behaviour. Given the difficulty of determining intent the

basis of this risky driving was investigated. Two different conceptualizations of the basis of

risk assessment by drivers were discussed. Both would indicate different origins for

aggressive behaviour. If drivers drive at the level of ‘crash’ risk they desire, the basic

motivation of the driver to be aggressive requires assessment. On the other hand, drivers

may not be aware that their driving puts themselves and other road users at risk. In this case

the study of risk taking and risk assessment by drivers may be a more productive line of

research than attempting to identify aggressive personality traits. Further research in this

area is required in order to determine the mechanisms of risk assessment. Given that

aggressive driving and risk taking may be indistinguishable on many occasions, further

investigation into the assessment of risk by different driver groups may reveal evidence of

importance in combating aggressive driving behaviour.

Further understanding of the context in which aggressive driving takes place is required.

However, the study of the personality and social characteristics of crash involved drivers

may not be productive as these traits have been found to change with time, age and

situation and cannot yet be used to predict accurately the crash history of individual drivers.

Even in the long term this area may not be fruitful in terms of countermeasures, especially

given the difficulties surrounding the gathering of adequate data. Henderson (1971) argued

that action is required to collect and store at the national level, the driving history (including

total crash involvement) of all licence holders. However, more knowledge is required about

what personal and social factors influence ‘normal’ driving behaviour.

Any further research investigating the possibility of a causal link between aggression and

road traffic crashes using personality tests would need to include stricter methodological

controls than those previously applied. In addition, validation of the results of previous

studies that have obtained significant effects using personality and attitude tests is

necessary. Adequate standardization of the personality tests employed is also required.

Given the apparently small number of drivers involved in multiple crashes and the difficulty

involved in investigating empirically the role of personality characteristics, social norms and

values on aggressive behaviour, it may be more productive (in terms of countermeasures) to

concentrate on other areas of road crash research.

References

Achtnich, M. (1967). Driver in the Szondi test. Schweizerische Zeitschrift fur Psycholoqie und

ihre Anwendunqen Supplement, 51, 80-81. (From Psychological Abstracts, 1987, 43,

Abstract No. 14933).

Adams, J. G. U. (1981). The efficacy of seatbelt legislation: A comparative study of road

accident statistics from

18 countries. London: Department of Geography, University

College.

Adams, J. R. (1970). Personality variables associated with traffic accidents. Behavioral

Research in Highway Safety, 1, 3-18.

Alonso-Fernandez, F. (1966). Dangerous psychological configurations of the tremulous

driver. Revista de Psicolouia General y Aplicada, 21(85), 947-960. (From Psychological

Abstracts, 1987, 42 Abstract No. 06243).

73

STAYSAFE 58

Anastasi, A. (1982). Psychological testing (5th Ed.). New York: MacMillan Press.

Asher, W. and Dodson, B. (1971). Automobile accidents in the year following high school:

The predictive value of 377 unobtrusive variables. Behavioral Research in Highway

Safety, 2, 107-122.

Bandura, A. (1983). Psychological mechanisms of aggression. In R. G. Geen and E. I.

Donnerstein. Aggression: Theoretical and emoirica1 reviews. (Volume 1). Theoretical and

methodological issues. (pp.l-35). New York: Academic Press.

Barchas, P. R. (1981). Vantage points for viewing aggression. In D. A. Hamburg and M. B.

Trudeau (Eds.). Biobehavioural aspects of aggression (pp.17-26). New York: Alan R.

Liss.

Barry, H. (1973). Motivational and cognitive effects of alcohol. Journal of Safety Research, 5,

200-221.

Beamish, J. J. and Malfetti, J. L. (1962). A psychological comparison of violator and non-

violator automobile drivers in the 16-19 year age group. Traffic Safety Research Review,

_, 12-15.

Bell, P. A. and Baron, R. A. (1981). Ambient temperature and human violence. In P. F. Brain

and D. Benton. Multidisciplinary approaches to aggression research

(pp.

421-430).

Amsterdam: Elsevier/ North-Holland Biomedical Press.

Bem, D. (1980). The concept of risk in study of human behaviour. In J. Dowie and P. Lefrere

(Eds.). Risk and chance: Selected readings (pp.l-15). London: The Open University

Press.

Berkowitz, L. (1962). Aggression: A social psychological analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Berkowitz, L. (1981). The concept of aggression. In P. F. Brain and D. Benton (Eds.).

Multidisciplinary approaches to aggression research

(pp.

3-15). Amsterdam:

Elsevier/NorthHolland Biomedical Press.

Black, S. (1966). Man and motor cars. London: Secker and Warburg.

Bollen, K. A. (1983). Temporal variations in mortality: A comparison of U.S. suicides and

motor vehicle fatalities, 1972-1976. DemooraPhv, 20, 45-59.

Bradstock, M. K., Marks, J. S., Forman, M. R., Gentry, E. M., Hogelin, G. C., Binkin, N. J.

and Trowbridge, F. L. (1987). Drink driving and health lifestyle in the United States:

Behavioural risk factors surveys. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 48, 147-152.

Bragg, B. W. and Finn, P. (1985). Influence of safety belt usage on perception of the risk of

an accident. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 17, 15-23.

Brahams, D.

(1987). Iatrogenic crime: Criminal behaviour in patients receiving drug

treatment. The Lancet, 1(8537), 874-875.

Brain, P. F. (1981). Classical ethology and human aggression. In P. F. Brain and D. Benton

(Eds.). The biology of aggression (pp.603-623). Alphen aanden Rijn, The Netherlands:

Sitjhoff and Noordhoff.

74

STAYSAFE 58

Brown, I. D. and Copeman, A. K. (1973). Drivers' attitudes to the seriousness of road traffic

offences considered in relation to the design of sanctions. First International Conference

on Driver Behaviour. Courbevoie, France: IDBRA.

Brown, P. L. and Berdie, R. F. (1960). Driver behaviour and scores on the MMPI. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 44, 18-21.

Burg, A. (1970). The stability of driving record over time. Accident Analysis and Prevention,

2, 57-65.

Burkner, A. (1975). Rozenzweig P-F study scores of drivers with traffic violations and drivers

with visual handicaps. Psychologie und Praxis, 19, 72-79.

Burner, M. (1973). The psychological aspects of traffic accidents. Psvcholocie Medicale, 5,

1363-1373.

Buss, A. H. (1961). The Psychology of Aggression. New York: John Wiley.

Cameron, T. L. (1982). Drinking and driving among American youth: Beliefs and behaviors.

Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 10(1), 1-33.

Carlson, W. L. and Klein, D. (1970). Familial versus institutional socialization of the young

traffic offender. Journal of Safety Research, 2, 13-25.

Clifford, W. and Marjoram, J. (1978). Road safety and crime. Canberra: Australian Institute

of Criminology.

Cofer, C. N. and Appley, M. H. (1964). Motivation: Theory and research. New York: Wiley.

Cole, G. A. and Withey, S. B. (1982). The risk of aggregation: Comment on Wilde. Risk

Analysis, 2, 243-247.

Conger, J. J., Gaskill, H. S., Glad, D. D., Rainey, R. V., Sawrey, W. L. and Turrell, E. S.

(1957). Personal and interpersonal factors in motor vehicle accidents. American Journal

of Psychiatry, 113, 1069-1074.

Conger, J. J., Gaskill, D. D., Glad, L., Hassel, L., Rainey, R. V., Sawrey, W. L. and Turrell, E.

S. (1959). Psychological and psychophysiological factors in motor vehicle accidents.

Journal of the American Medical Association, 169, 1581-1587.

Conley, J. A. and Smiley, R. (1976). Driver licensing tests as a predictor of subsequent

violations. Human Factors, 18, 565-574.

Conybeare, J. A. C. (1980). Evaluation of automobile safety regulations: The case of

compulsory seatbelt legislation. Police Sciences, 12, 27-39.

Cowley, J. E. and Cameron, M. H. (1976). Prediction of motor vehicle fatality trends following

seatbelt wearing legislation. Proceedings of the Australian Road Research Board (8

(session 27)) (pp.20-30).

Crancer, A. Jr. and Quiring, D. L. (1969). The chronic alcoholic as a motor vehicle operator.

Northwest Medicine, 68, 42-47.

Crancer, A., Jr. and Quiring, D. L. (1970). Driving records of persons hospitalized for suicidal

gestures. Behavioral Research in Highway Safety, 1, 33-42.

75

STAYSAFE 58

Cumming, R. W. (1975). Accident involvement of the young driver.

(Paper No.

17).

Proceedings of a seminar on Road safety and the law, Sydney, August, 1973. Canberra:

Australian Government Publishing Service.

Dollard, J., Doob, L. W. Miller, N. E., Mowrer, O. H. and Sears, R. R. (1939). Frustration and

aggression. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Donelson, A. C. (1985). Drinking and driving in the sociocultural context: Research needs

and opportunities. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 46 (SUPP1 . 10), 78-89.

Donovan, D. M. and Marlatt, G. A. (1982). Personality subtypes among driving - while -

intoxicated offenders: Relationship to drinking behaviour and driving risk. Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 241-249.

Donovan, D. M., Marlatt, G. A. and Salzberg, P. M. (1983). Drinking behaviour, personality

factors and high-risk driving' A review and theoretical formulation. Journal of Studies on

Alcohol, 44, 395-428.

Donovan, D. M., Queisser, H. R., Salzburg, P. M. and Umlauf, R. L. (1985). Intoxicated and

bad drivers: Subgroups within the same population of high-risk men drivers. Journal of

Studies on Alcohol, 46, 375-382.

Ebbesen, E. B. and Haney, M. (1973). Flirting with death: Variables affecting risk taking at

intersections. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 3, 303-324.

Edmunds, G. and Kendrick, D. C. (1980). The measurement of human aggressiveness.

Chichester, England: Ellis Horwood.

Edwards, M. L. and Ellis, N. C. (1976). An evaluation of the Texas driver improvement

training program. Human Factors, 18, 327-334.

Eelkema, R. C., Bronsseau, J., Koshnick, R. and McGee, C. (1970) A statistical study on the

relationship between mental illness and traffic accidents. American Journal of Public

Health, 60, 459-469.

Eron, L. D. and Huesmann, L. R. (1984). The control of aggressive behavior by changes in

attitudes, values and the conditions of learning. Advances in the Study of Aggression, 1,

139-171.

Evans, L. (1985). Human behaviour feedback and traffic safety. Human Factors, 27, 555-

576.

Evans, L. and Wasielewski, P. (1982a). Do accident involved drivers exhibit riskier everyday

driving? Accident Analysis and Prevention, 14, 57-64.

Evans, L. and Wasielwski, P.

(1982b). Risky driving related to driver and vehicle

characteristics. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 15, 121-136.

Evans, L., Wasielewski, P. and von Buseck. C. R. (1982). Compulsory seatbelt usage and

driver risk-taking behaviour. Human Factors, 24, 41-48.

Foldvary, L. A. and Lane, J. C. (1974). The effectiveness of compulsory seatbelt usage in

casualty reduction. Accident Analysis and Prevention, _, 59-81.

76

STAYSAFE 58

Gibbens, T. C. N. (1971). Mental illness, personality and behaviour disorders. In A. Raffle

(Ed.), Medical aspects of fitness to drive: A guide for general practitioners (pp.30-33).

London: Medical Commission on Accident Prevention.

Gcoffioul, F.

(1971). Alcoholism at the wheel. Psychopathological aspects. Feuillets

Psychiatrioues de Liege, 4, 221-229. (From Psychological Abstracts, 49, Abstract No.

07154).

Goldstein, L. G. (1961). Research on human variables in safe motor vehicle operation: A

correlational summary of predictor variable and criterion measures. Driver Behaviour

Research Project, George Washington University, Washington D.C.

Goldstein, L. G.

(1964). Psychological aspects of traffic accidents. Traffic Digest and

Review, 12(7), 10-12.

Graham, J. D. (1982). On Wilde's 'Theory of Risk Homeostasis'. Risk Analysis, 2, 235-237.

Gumpper, D. C. and Smith, K. R. (1968). The prediction of individual accident liability with an

inventory measuring risk-taking tendency. Traffic Safety Research Review 12 (Pp.50-55).

Gusfield, J. R. (1985). Social and cultural contexts of the drinking-driving event. Journal of

Studies on Alcohol, 46 (SUPP1. 10), 70-77.

Hakkert, A. S., Zaidel, D. M. and Sarelle, E. (1981). Patterns of safety belt usage following

the introduction of a safety belt wearing law. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 13, 65-82.

Hakkinen, S.

(1958). Traffic accidents and driver characteristics: A statistical and

psychological study.

(Scientific Researches, No.

13). Helsinki: Finland Institute of

Technology.

Hamalainen, K. (1973). Automobile accidents as self destructive behaviour. A study of the

accidents of drinking drivers. Psychiatria Fennica, 147-151.

Hamer, M. (1981). Do compulsory seatbelts save lives? New Scientist, 1972(Feb), 461.

Hampson, G. (1984). Contributing factors in road crashes. (Report No. WD 78). Canberra:

Office of Road Safety.

Harrington, D. M. (1972). The young driver follow-up study: An evaluation of the role of

human factors in the first four years of driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 4,

191240.

Henderson, M. (1971). Human factors in traffic safety: A reappraisa1 (Report NO. 1/71).

Rosebery, New South Wales: Traffic Accident Research Unit, Department of Motor

Transport.

Henderson, M. (1972). The young driver (Report No. 3/72). Rosebery, New South Wales:

Traffic Accident Research Unit, Department of Motor Transport.

Hertz, D. (1970). Personality factors in automobile accidents. Harefuah, 79(4), 165-167.

(From Psychological Abstracts, 45, Abstract No. 09137).

Holt, P. C. (1982). Stressful life events preceding road traffic accidents. Injury: The British

Journal of Accident Surgery, 13, 111-115.

77

STAYSAFE 58

Hurst, P. M. (1979). Compulsory seatbelt use: Further inference,. Accident Analysis and

Prevention, 27-33.

Joksch, H. C. (1976). Critique of Sam Peltzman's study: The effect of automobile safety

regulations. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 129-137.

Kaufmann, H. (1965). Definitions and methodology in the study of aggression. Psychological

Bulletin, 64, 351-364.

Klein, D. (1971). The influence of societal values on rates of death and injury. Journal of

Safety Research, 3, 2-8.

Klein, D. (1972). Adolescent driving as deviant behaviour. Journal of Safety Research, 4, 98-

105.

Klein, D. (1976). Social aspects of exposure to highway crash. Human Factors, 18, 211-220.

LeGarde, J. C., Lubman, M. V. and Hartnett, J. J. (1971). A highway safety 'scare' film and

its effects on performance and mood of males and females. Behavioral Research in

Highway Safety, 2, 83-97.

Lindgren, B. and Stuart, C. (1980). The effects of traffic safety regulation in Sweden. Journal

of Political Economy, 88, 412-427.

Linnoila, M. and Seppala, T. (1985). Antidepressants and driving. Accident Analysis and

Prevention, 17, 297-301.

Lucas, R. L. (1970). Attitudes, personal characteristics and driver behaviour. In N. W.

Heimstra (Ed.). Injury control in traffic safety (pp.129-153). Springfield, Illinois: Thomas.

MacDonald, J. M.

(1964). Suicide and homicide by automobile. American Journal of

Psychiatry, 121, 366-370.

Maki, M. and Linnoila, M. (1976). Traffic accident rates among Finnish out-patients. Accident

Analysis and Prevention, 8, 39-44.

Maletzky, B. M.

(1973). The episodic dyscontrol syndrome. Diseases of the Nervous

System, 34, 178-185.

Malfetti, J. L. and Fine, J. L. (1962). Characteristics of safe drivers: A pilot study. Traffic

Safety Research Review, 6, 3-9.

Mayer, R. E. and Treat, J. R. (1977). Psychological, social and cognitive characteristics of

high-risk drivers: A pilot study. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 9, 1-8.

Mayhew, D. R., Donelson, A. C., Bierness, D. J. and Simpson, H. M. (1986). Youth, alcohol

and relative risk of crash involvement. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 18, 273-287.

McGuire, F. L. (1976). Personality factors in highway accidents. Human Factors, 18, 433-

442.

McKenna, F. P. (1982). The human factor in driving accidents: An overview of approaches

and problems. Ergonomics, 25, 867-877.

78

STAYSAFE 58

McKenna, F. P. (1983). Accident proneness: A conceptual analysis. Accident Analysis and

Prevention, 15, 65-71.

McKenna, F. P. (1985). Do safety measures really work? An examination of the Risk

Homeostasis theory. Ergonomics 489-498.

MacMurray, L. (1970). Emotional stress and driving performance: The effect of divorce.

Behavioral Research in Highway Safety, 1, 100-114.

Mental Measurements Yearbook (8th Edition) (1978). New Jersey:,Gryphon Press.

Michalowski, R. J. (1975). Violence on the road: The crime of vehicular homicide. Journal of

Research in Crime and Delinquency, 12, 30-43.

Mitchell, M. C.

(1985). Alcohol-induced impairment of central nervous system function:

Behavioural skills involved in driving. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 46 ( SUPP1 . 10 ),

109-116.

Moskowitz, H. (1976). Marihuana and driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 8, 21-26.

Moyer, K. E. (1981). Biological substrates and implications for control. In P. F. Brain and D.

Benton

(Eds.). The biology of aggression

(pp.47-67). Alphen aanden Rijn, The

Netherlands: Sitjhoff and Noordhoff.

Mozdzierz, G. J., Macchitelli, F. J., Planek, T. W. and Lottman, T. J. (1975). Personality and

temperament differences between alcoholics with high and low records of traffic accidents

and violations. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 36, 395-399.

Mueller, C. W. (1983). Environmental stressors and aggressive behaviour. In R. G. Geen

and E. I. Donnerstein (Eds.). Aggression: Theoretical and empirical reviews. (Volume 2).

Issues in research. (pp.51-75). New York: Academic Press.

Muller, A. (1980). Evaluation of the costs and benefits of motorcycle helmet laws. American

Journal of Public Health, 70, 586-592.

Naatanen, R. and Summala, H. (1974). A model for the role of motivational factors in drivers'

decision making. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 6, 243-261.

Naatanen, R. and Summala, H.

(1976). Road user behaviour and traffic accidents.

Amsterdam: North Holland.

Noyes, R.

(1985). Motor vehicle accidents related to psychiatric impairment.

Psychosomatics, 26, 569-580.

O'Neill, B. (1977). A decision theory model of danger compensation. Accident Analysis and

Prevention, 9, 157-165.

Pandiani, J. A. and McGrath, A. J. (1986). Attempts to dissuade drinkers from driving: The

effect of driver characteristics. Journal of Drug Education, 16, 341-348.

Panek, P. E. and Wagner, E. E. (1986). Hand test personality variables related to automotive

violations in female drivers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 50, 208-211.

Parry, M. H. (1968). Aggression on the road: A pilot study of behaviour in the driving

situation. London: Tavistock.

79

STAYSAFE 58

Peck, R. C. (1976). Toward a dynamic system of driver improvement: program evaluation.

Human Factors, 18, 493-506.

Peltzman, S.

(1975). The effects of automobile safety regulation Journal of Political

Economy, 83, 677-725.

Pelz, D. C. and Schumann, S. H. (1968). Dangerous young drivers. Highway Research

News, 31-41.

Pelz, D. C. and Schumann, S. H. (1971). Are young drivers really more dangerous after

controlling for exposure and experience. Journal of Safety Research, 3, 68-79.

Perrett, J. (1987, August 8-9). ‘Mad Max’ stalks the L. A. freeways. The Weekend Australian

(pp.12).

Pitariu, H.

(1985). The Holtzman Inkblot Technique: A tentative study with professional

drivers. Revue Roumaine des Sciences Sociales - Serie de Psycholoqie, 29, 75-81.

Plutchik, R. and Kellerman, H. (Eds.). (1980). Emotion: Theory, research and experience.

(Vol. 1). London: Academic Press.

Porterfield, A. (1960). Traffic fatalities, suicide and homicide. American Sociological Review,

25, 897-901.

Preston, C. E. and Harris, S. (1965). Psychology of drivers in traffic accidents. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 49, 284-288

Quenault, S. W. (1967a). The driving behaviour of certain professional drivers. (Report LR

93). Crowthorne, Berkshire: Transport and Road Research Laboratory.

Quenault, S. W. (1967b). Driver behaviour - safe and unsafe drivers. (Report LR 70).

Crowthorne, Berkshire: Transport and Road Research Laboratory.

Quenault, S. W.

(1968a). Dissociation and driver behaviour

(Report No. LR

212).

Crowthorne, Berkshire: Transport and Road Research Laboratory.

Quenault, S. W. (1968b). Driver behaviour - safe and unsafe drivers. Part 11 (Report No. LR

146). Crowthorne, Berkshire: Transport and Road Research Laboratory.

Quenault, S. W. and Parker, P. M. (1973). Driver behaviour - Newly qualified drivers (Report

No. LR 567). Crowthorne, Berkshire: Transport and Road Research Laboratory.

Quenault, S. W., Golby, L. W. and Pryer, P. M. (1968). Age group and accident rate: Driving

behaviour and attitudes (Report No. LR 167). Crowthorne, Berkshire: Transport and Road

Research Laboratory.

Quimby, A. R. and Watts, G. R. (1981). Human factors and driving performance. (Report No.

LR 1004). Crowthorne, Berkshire: Transport and Road Research Laboratory.

Road accidents and driving behaviour. (1978). British Medical Journal, 2 (6151), 1551-1553.

Robertson, L. S. (1977a). State and federal new car safety regulation: Effects on fatality

rates. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 9, 151-156.

80

STAYSAFE 58

Robertson, L. S. (1977b). A critical analysis of Peltzman’s, ‘The effects of automobile safety

regulation’. Journal of Economic Issues, 83, 587-601.

Robertson, L. S. (1981). Automobile safety regulations and death reductions in the United

States. American Journal of Public Health, 71, 818-822.

Robertson, L. S., Baker, S. P. (1975). Prior violation records of 1447 drivers involved in fatal

crashes. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 7, 121.

Rumar, K., Berggrund, U, Jernberg, P. and Ytterbom, U. (1976). Driver reaction to a

technical safety measure - studded tyres. Human Factors, 18, 443-454.

Schenk, J. and Rausche, A. (1979). The personality of accident prone drivers. Psychologie

und Praxis, 23(4), 179-186.

Schmidt, C. W., Shaffer, J. W., Zlotowitz, H. I. and Fisher, R. S. (1977). Suicide by vehicular

crash. American Journal of Psychiatry, 134, 175-178.

Schuman, S. H., Pelz, D. C., Ehrlich, N. J., and Selzer, M. L. (1967). Young male drivers:

Impulse expression, accidents, and violations. Journal of the American Medical

Association, 200, 1026-1030.

Schuster, D. H. and Guilford, J. P. (1964). The psychometric prediction of problem drivers.

Human Factors, 6, 393-421.

Selzer, M. L. (1969). Alcoholism, mental illness and stress in 96 drivers causing fatal

accidents. Behavioral Science, 14, 1-10

Selzer, M. L. and Payne, C. E. (1962). Automobile accidents, suicide and unconscious

motivation. American Journal of Psychiatry, 119, 237-240.

Selzer, M. L. and Vinokur, A. (1974). Life events, subjective stress, and traffic accidents.

American Journal of Psychiatry, 131, 903-906.

Selzer, M. L., Rogers, J. E. and Kern, S.

(1968). Fatal accidents: The role of

psychopathology, social stress and acute disturbance. American Journal of Psychiatry,

124, 1028-1036.

Selzer, M. L., Vinokur, A. and Wilson, T. D. (1977). A psychosocial comparison of drunken

drivers and alcoholics. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 38, 1294-1312.

Seppala, T., Linnoila, M. and Mattila, M. J. (1979). Drugs, alcohol and driving. Drugs, 17,

389-408.

Shaffer, J. W., Schmidt, C. N., Zlotowitz, H. I. and Fisher, R. S. (1978). Biorhythms and

highway crashes. Archives of General Psychiatry, 35, 41-46.

Sharma, S. (1976). Barbiturates and driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 8, 27-31.

Shaw, L. and Sichel, H. S. (1971). Accident proneness: Research in the occurrence,

causation, and the prevention of road accidents. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Shinar, D. (1978). Psychology on the road: The human factor in traffic safety. New York:

Wiley.

81

STAYSAFE 58

Shoham, S. G., Rahav, G., Markovski, R., Chard, F. and Baruch, I. (1984). “Anxious” and

“reckless” drivers. Deviant Behavior, 5(1-4), 181-191.

Signori, E. I. and Bowman, R. G. (1974). On the study of personality factors in research on

driving behavior. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 38 (3, Pt 2), 1067-1076.

Simpson, H. M. and Warren, R. A. (1981). Alcohol, other drugs and driving. In H. C. Foot

and F. M. Wade (Eds.). Road Safety: Research and Practice (pp.189-197). Eastbourne:

Praeger.

Slovic, P. and Fischhoff, B. (1982). Targeting risks: Comment on Wilde’s theory of risk

homeostasis. Risk Analysis, 2, 227-234.

Slovic, P. Fischhoff, B. and Lichtenstein, S. (1978). Accident probabilities and seatbelt

usage: A psychological perspective. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 10, 281-285.

Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B. and Lichtenstein, S.

(1980). Facts and fears: Understanding

perceived risk. In R. C. Schwing and W. A. Albers (Eds.). Societal risk assessment: How

safe is safe enough? (pp.181-216). New York: Plenum.

Sobel, R. and Underhill, R. (1976). Family disorganization and teenage auto accidents.

Journal of Safety Research, 8, 8-18.

Standards for Educational and Psychological Tests (1974). Washington D.C.: American

Psychological Association.

Summala, H (1986). Risk control is not risk adjustment: The zero - risk theory of driver

behaviour and its implications (Report 11:1986). Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Traffic

Accident Research Unit.

Svenson, O., Fischhoff, B. and MacGregor, D. (1985). Perceived driving safety and seatbelt

usage. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 17, 119-133.

Taylor, D. (1976). Accidents, risks and models of explanation Ergonomics, 18, 371-380.

Taylor, S. P. and Leonard, K. E. (1983). Alcohol and human physical aggression. In R. G.

Green and E. I. Donnerstein (Eds.). Aggression: Theoretical and empirical reviews.

(Volume 2). Issues in research (pp.77-101). New York: Academic Press.

Tillman, W. A. and Hobbs, G. E. (1949). The accident-prone automobile driver. A study of

the psychiatric and social background. American Journal of Psychiatry, 106,

Tingvall, C. (1982). Is Adams right? Some aspects on a theory concerning the effects of

seatbelt legislation. Journal of Traffic Medicine, 10, 41-47.

Tonkin, R. S. (1987). Adolescent risk-taking behavior. Journal of Adolescent Health Care, 8,

213-220.

Tsuang, M. T., Boor, M. and Fleming, J. A. (1985). Psychiatric aspects of traffic accidents.

American Journal of Psychiatry, 142, 538-546.

Turner, C. W., Layton, J. F. and Simons, L. S. (1975). Naturalistic studies of aggressive

behaviour: Aggressive stimuli, victim visibility and horn honking. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 1098-1107.

82

STAYSAFE 58

Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases.

Science, 185, 1124-1131.

Valentine, D., Williams, M. and Young, R. K.

(1977). Personality factors in accident

causation.

(Report

48). Austin, Texas: Texas University Council for Advanced

Transportation Study.

Watson, G. S., Zador, P. L. and Wilks, A. (1980). The repeal of helmet use laws and

increased motorcyclist mortality in the U.S.,

1975-1978. American Journal of Public

Health, 70, 579-585.

Whitlock, F. A. (1971). Death on the road: A study in social violence. London: Tavistock.

Wilde, G. J. S. (1973). Social psychological factors and use of mass publicity. The Canadian

Psychologist, 14, 1-7.

Wilde, G. J. S. (1976). Social interaction patterns in driver behaviour: An introductory review.

Human Factors 18, 477-492

Wilde, G. J. S. (1982a). The theory of risk homeostasis: Implications for safety and health.

Risk Analysis, 2, 209-225.

Wilde, G. J. S.

(1982b). Critical issues in risk homeostasis theory: A response. Risk

Analysis, 2, 249-258.

Williams, C. L., Henderson, A. S. and Mills, J. M. (1974). An epidemiological study of serious

traffic offenders. Social Psychiatry, 9, 99-109.

Yates, W. R., Meller, W. and Troughton, E. P.

(1987). Behavioural complications of

alcoholism. American Family Physician, 35, 171-175.

Zylman, R. (1975). DWI enforcement programs: Why are they not more effective. Accident

Analysis and Prevention, 7, 179-190.

83

STAYSAFE 58

ROAD RAGE

M. James

Department of the Parliamentary Library

SOURCE: James, M.

(1997).

Road rage.

Research Note 25 [1996-97]. Canberra, ACT:

Parliamentary Library, Commonwealth of

Australia.

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/

rn/rn96-97.htm, accessed 21 May 1997.

Anger breeds contempt

Growing reports of violence and retributions on the nation's roads, following well-publicised

American trends over the last few years, are cause for concern. Some commentators

suggest that this 'road rage' phenomenon threatens social cohesion and requires prompt

amelioration. Otherwise, Australia's roads may become battlefields for antisocial behaviour.

Aggressive and violent behaviours have occurred on our roads for many years, but lately the

incidence appears to be rising. This is probably because stress from growing traffic

congestion causes anger, frustration and fear. The private anonymity of vehicles seems to

promote antisocial responses. A clash between an ageing car fleet and more powerful new

cars may also contribute.

While psychologists may term such aggression 'need for dominance' or 'territorial defence'

stemming from overcrowding, these terms do not help us solve the problem. Australians

have been long used to wide open spaces and do not readily accept crowded roads and

traffic jams.

Road rage exists in many forms, from mild to very extreme. It includes verbal abuse; rude

gestures and horn use; tailgating and selfish lane changing; and extends to dangerous

manoeuvres, arguments, deliberate collisions, fights and even murder in a few

well-publicised cases.

Besides the psychological trauma and possible injury, indirect effects are speeding, ignoring

road signs, poor lane discipline and lack of courtesy. Road rage may also be costly in terms

of higher fuel consumption, tyre and brake wear and the repair of collision damage.

Aggressive driving

A Scottish study found that one quarter of drivers had given chase to others who had

offended them in some way, while eight per cent had actually had a fight with other

motorists. The British Automobile Association reports that nine per cent of drivers were

victims of either verbal or physical attack last year. American surveys suggest that young

male drivers dominate road rage.

The Australian Associated Motor Insurers [AAMI] crash index shows aggressive driving as

the cause of an increasing rate of rear-end collisions and incidents due to failure to give way.

This is despite a general fall in the road toll, improved driver training and better roads. While

such events may not directly represent road rage, they do suggest related factors.

84

STAYSAFE 58

Pedestrians and cyclists are not excluded from road rage. Harassment can be directed at

them by aggressive motorists or their passengers. Some pedestrians and cyclists may not

obey road rules, causing annoyance or even danger to motorists; while motorists may forget

that pedestrians, cyclists and drivers have equal rights to road space use. Nonetheless,

there is no nationwide set of rules to address road rage, or for road safety in general (see

box) despite some effort in that direction.

National road safety law

Local, State and Federal Governments together handle road safety programs. However,

they are yet to agree on uniform road laws for all parts of Australia. Among current proposals

are a 50 km/h speed limit on suburban streets, left turns against red traffic lights, bicycles on

footpaths, bus priority and school zone speed limits of 25 km/h. Note that not all States use

speed cameras for law enforcement. The Australian Transport Council considers these and

other road safety issues.

Since 1991, the National Road Transport Commission has developed uniform and consistent

rules for vehicles designed to replace the basic traffic Regulations in all States and

Territories. However, the rules await adoption. They do not cover more serious offences

such as drink driving, fines and demerit points, driver licensing and registration, or bus seat

belts. Changing to the new rules would involve a once-only cost of new signs, line markings,

and education to total $75 million.

Remedies

Road safety is a social health issue that accordingly deserves wide discussion in the

community. It requires clear guidelines and driver training. Victorian magistrates want the

specific power to suspend licences for road rage behaviour and to require offending drivers

to attend anger control and defensive driving courses. In the long term, technology may

provide some controls in the form of Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS). Intelligent transport

systems include electronic toll-charging devices, highway message signs and on-board

vehicle navigation systems able to assess road and traffic conditions. Red light cameras and

speed radar and laser detectors are common examples. More advanced intelligent transport

systems may involve vehicle speed controls and convoy flow regulation that ensure proper

separation between all vehicles. Intelligent transport systems aim to utilise electronic

technology and communications in vehicles and along roads to improve safety and traffic

flows. Experts claim that intelligent transport systems could reduce traffic congestion by

twenty per cent and accidents by eight per cent by the year 2011, although at a high cost.

Over the next decade though, we may expect improvements such as systems for handling

navigation, vehicle monitoring, emergency signalling, congestion avoidance and adaptive

cruise controls. Such physical restrictions may well help curb road rage in the long term but

they are still years away in full practice. They also have ‘fail-safe’ implications in the case of

failure.

In the short-term, though, road rage victims need some defensive and survival techniques.

Police and road safety education programs advise victims of aggressive drivers to avoid eye

contact and keep their distance, and drive to the nearest police station if necessary.

Motorists should keep doors and windows locked and never carry weapons. Drivers could

use or pretend to use a mobile telephone to request police or other assistance.

In the case of very bad drivers, one suggestion is that people should be encouraged to

report bad road behaviour. While one or two reports may not amount to much, if a report

85

STAYSAFE 58

database shows certain motorists being reported by a large number of others, something is

obviously wrong. A national telephone service could provide this database. The new New

South Wales road rage hotline on 133 112 is a step in this direction, but requires expansion

and wider use.

86

STAYSAFE 58

AGGRESSIVE AND INTIMIDATORY DRIVING

STAYSAFE Committee

SOURCE: STAYSAFE Committee

(1997).

Aggressive and intimidatory driving. Paper

presented by Mr Ian J. Faulks, Director of the

STAYSAFE Committee, at the Motor Vehicles

Update seminar,

15 May 1997. Sydney,

NSW: Legal and Accounting Management

Seminars.

Introduction

There has been growing concern expressed in the community, in Parliament and in the

media about aggressive, intimidatory, menacing and abusive driving, or so-called ‘road

rage’, on our roads. Recent incidents, particularly those of a violent nature, have been

highlighted in the media, and there have been arguments put forward that these violent

incidents are a new phenomenon which is growing alarmingly. As a result, there has been

community concern regarding the possible threat to public and individual safety.

The Premier, the Hon. Bob Carr MP, proposed that the STAYSAFE Committee should

review the nature and circumstances of the ‘road rage’ phenomenon, and the STAYSAFE

Committee received a formal reference from the Minister for Roads, the Hon. Carl Scully

MP, requesting an inquiry into aggressive, intimidatory, menacing and abusive driving.

The STAYSAFE Committee has decided to:

safety problem, and a traffic management issue;

is a changing trend;

behaviours;

recommendations for any reforms which may be appropriate; and

which they can assist to promote courteous driving and riding amongst the majority of

road users.

The STAYSAFE Committee is thus seeking to provide an overview of the traffic

management, policing and legal issues surrounding aggressive, intimidatory, menacing and

abusive driving. In particular, the Committee will examine whether the legal sanctions now

in place are sufficient to deal with 'road rage' behaviours, and to examine whether the

penalties available upon conviction of violent or intimidatory offences on the road are

appropriate.

87

STAYSAFE 58

As the STAYSAFE Committee has not yet concluded its inquiries, this paper outlines some

of the issues under examination, and summarises some of the research in the area of

aggressive driving.

Aggressive and intimidatory driving

The STAYSAFE Committee is aware of an enormous number of complaints and stories of

aggressive or intimidatory or menacing or abusive driving incidents in which people have

been involved, or which they have observed. As indicated by the New South Wales

Parliamentary Secretary for Roads, Mr Grant McBride MP, recently:

"... I guess we can all relate to that issue [of road rage] because we have all

been guilty of it or a victim of it—including me."

But what is the this experience of 'road rage'? Some typical hypothetical cases illustrate the

range and diversity of experiences:

CASE 1: A man is driving his car on a bright clear day with only scattered traffic on a two-

lane undivided highway. He chooses to drive at 15-20 km/h over the posted maximum

speed limit, and catches up to and overtakes other vehicles repeatedly at high speed.

CASE 2: A woman is driving in the left lane of a multilane divided highway in moderate

traffic. She approaches another vehicle ahead of her, and will need to overtake if she

wishes to maintain her current speed. Approaching behind her, in the right lane, is another

faster vehicle. If the woman remains in the left lane and slows her vehicle’s speed slightly,

the faster vehicle will overtake both her and the vehicle ahead in a single manoeuvre. The

woman pulls out to overtake the slower vehicle ahead just before the faster vehicle behind

her has drawn abreast to her vehicle. The driver of the faster vehicle flashes the vehicle’s

headlights and brakes to a distance of less than 6-7 metres behind the woman’s vehicle.

After passing the slower vehicle, the woman indicates and moves into the left lane and the

faster vehicle then overtakes her in turn and continues on.

CASE 3: A woman is driving in wet weather and at dusk in the middle lane of a three-lane

divided major arterial route in metropolitan Sydney. The peak hour period is ending, but the

traffic flow remains heavy and continuous. Passing through an intersection at the top of a

hill, she notes a gap in the traffic in the right lane, and quickly indicates and moves into the

right lane. As she does so, the driver of a following vehicle in the right lane flashes the

vehicle’s headlights and sounds the horn. The woman then begins to brake her vehicle as

she proceeds down the hill, indicating and slowing down to enter a turning bay to effect a

right turn at the next intersection. The driver of the following vehicle in the right lane again

flashes the vehicle’s headlights and sounds the horn. The driver of the following vehicle

later contacts police and passes on the woman’s vehicle registration number, complaining

that the woman ‘cut in’ and then tried to ‘baulk the driver’ by braking suddenly.

CASE 4: In peak hour traffic moving at a crawl, or a very slow speed, the driver of a vehicle

in the centre lane turns on the left indicator and edges the vehicle across the painted lane

markings, seeking to enter the left, kerbside lane. A driver in the kerbside lane accelerates

his vehicle to block the manoeuvre.

CASE 5: A vehicle is driven in the right lane of a multilane divided highway in moderate

traffic at the posted maximum speed limit of 100 km/h. This vehicle is not overtaking several

vehicles in the left lane, but is maintaining a relatively constant position. Approaching behind

this vehicle is a stream of faster traffic. The driver of the vehicle in the right lane does not

indicate and move into the left lane, nor does he speed up to complete any overtaking

88

STAYSAFE 58

manoeuvre in a short time. The lead driver of the faster traffic stream flashes the vehicle’s

headlights and begins to tailgate, maintaining a distance of less than 6-7 metres behind the

slower vehicle. The driver of the slower vehicle makes a rude gesture, and brakes suddenly

and sharply, causing all vehicles in the traffic stream to brake suddenly to avoid a collision.

The driver of the slower vehicle then matches speed with a vehicle in the left lane, and

maintains this relative position for several kilometres, contributing to a build up of a banked

stream of traffic in both the right and left lanes.

CASE 7: Approaching a T-intersection onto a priority road, a driver pauses only momentarily

at a Give Way sign and begins pulls out into the traffic stream. The driver of a vehicle on the

priority road is forced to take evasive action to avoid a crash, braking and sounding the horn,

before accelerating past the emerging vehicle, making a rude gesture in passing. At the

next signalised intersection, which is subject to a red stop light, a male passenger in the

vehicle which entered onto the priority road gets out, shouts abuse and strikes at the other

driver, then damages the windscreen wiper arms and dents in the drivers side door.

CASE 8: After the situation described in Case 4, one of the drivers then follows the other,

closely (tailgating) and without pause or deviation. The driver follows all of the way to the

other driver's home, even though this is a considerable divergence from the original intended

journey. The drivers do not speak or gesture at each other, and the following driver merely

drives slowly past the other's home without stopping, but stares steadily at the other driver

as the vehicle proceeds past the home.

It is unclear, in all of the examples detailed, if aggressive driving actually occurred. That is,

how do we separate the robust 'hurly-burly' of everyday driving interactions, including

instances of inappropriate and mistaken driving behaviour, such as poor gap selection,

inappropriate speed and acts of discourtesy or rudeness, from instances of aggression?

Even when it can be held that there was clearly aggressive behaviour, it can sometimes be

rather difficult to agree upon who, in fact, was the aggressor and who was the victim. Which

drivers in these hypothetical cases were aggressive? In some of the examples, were both

drivers aggressive? In Case 7, where the passenger was aggressive, should the driver

conveying him be held to be responsible for his passenger’s actions? Further, it seems that

contradictory, but equally plausible, stories can be obtained from each of the participants in

the types of driving encounters described in these hypothetical cases.

When the New South Wales government moved to establish a 'Sharing the Roads' forum

recently, with the objectives of promoting increased consultation and better understanding

between road users groups such as the truck industry, bus drivers, motorists, motorcyclists,

bicyclists and, pedestrians, one of the actions undertaken was to attempt to survey

community concerns about the interaction of these different user groups. A telephone

survey was designed, using the model of a 'hotline' which people could call and register their

opinions. Very rapidly, the telephone hotline was dubbed the 'road rage hotline' and

hundreds of instances of aggressive driving and more serious crime were being reported.

Most complaints were from car drivers about other car drivers, and reported tailgating,

obstructive driving, prolonged use of the horn, and use of obscene gestures.

Road safety and aggressive driving

The impact of antisocial behaviour on road trauma is not known and statistics of such

behaviour are not maintained in any form. Notwithstanding this, such behaviour certainly has

the potential to impact on road trauma through its effect of further complicating the already

complex task of negotiating the road system. Similarly, if the antisocial behaviour were to

89

STAYSAFE 58

take the form of a deliberate act of causing a collision between road users, then the

incidence of road trauma would be affected.

The general response of road safety workers to community concerns with aggressive and

intimidatory driving has been to downplay the significance of such conduct as a road safety

issue. They say:

“Show me the road trauma that is associated with such conduct ... how many

people have been killed or injured?”

The STAYSAFE Committee notes that it is possible to construct an argument that the

community’s concerns with dangerous, aggressive and otherwise inappropriate road

behaviour have arisen in direct association with the community’s increasing intolerance of

road trauma as a intractable aspect of a motorised society. Community intolerance to road

deaths and injury can thus be seen as a consequence, in part, of the successful

interventions by successive Governments in educating the community about the risks and

consequences of inappropriate and illegal road use, and in introducing and promoting new

traffic enforcement technologies and police operational deployment strategies to deter road

users from inappropriate and illegal conduct.

Studies of aggressive driving

Despite the plethora of media reports on ‘road rage’, there are few studies of aggressive and

intimidatory driving. Only a few research studies met the demand for scientific rigour.

Among these is the study of Grey, Triggs and Haworth (1989), who examined the role of

personality, social characteristics, risk and motivation in driver aggression, and the work of

Carthy, Packham, Rhodes-Defty, Salter, and Silcock (1993), who examined perceptions and

attitudes towards risk and safety on the roads.

Recently, however, several other studies and reviews have emerged. For example, in the

United States of America, the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety has released preliminary

results of a survey of changes in the reporting of aggressive driving, claiming that aggressive

driving has progressively increased during the 1990s. The study analysed 10,037 police

reports and newspaper stories over the period 1990-1996 that concerned traffic incidents

that led to violence. The preliminary analysis indicated that reports of violent traffic incidents

have increased nearly 7% per year since 1990. However, these preliminary results should

be regarded with caution.

Several studies have been completed in Australia and New Zealand, including an

exploratory study by New Zealand police (Wright, Gaulton & Miller, 1997), a study by

Murdoch University researchers for the Royal Automobile Club in Western Australia (Crime

Research Centre, 1997), and a report by Elliott & Shanahan Research for the Victorian

government (as yet unpublished).

Wright, Gaulton & Miller (1997)

Wright, Gaulton & Miller (1997) found that driving is inherently a frustrating task. Frustration,

they argued, is built into road systems, with:

the learner driver, the elderly and the tourist from overseas

90

STAYSAFE 58

inadvertently obstruct another vehicle’s progress.

Skilled drivers are often intolerant of drivers who do not perform at what they see as an

equivalent and appropriate level of competence.

Sixteen cases of serious road aggression were examined in Wright et al.’s study—it is

acknowledged that the conclusions are only indicative of the factors involved, and more

detailed study is required. In all cases, the origin of the incident was an instance of poor,

careless or risky driving (e.g., pulling into the traffic stream or onto the roadway without

looking, following closely or tailgating, or competition between drivers during merging).

Perpetrators of aggressive behaviour were likely to be male, with the victims also likely to be

male. The forms of assault reported were punches and use of a weapon, usually an item

that was easily to hand such as a tyre lever, rocks on the roadside, etc.. This indicated that

the intention to assault was usually not premeditated. The study suggests that those drivers

who vent their frustration in acts of aggression are likely to demonstrate that same lack of

personal restraint in other areas of their life. Almost all acts of violence between drivers end

in court with offenders facing assault or more serious charges.

The study rejected the popular notion that getting behind the wheel of a car taps some

primal urge to make an otherwise meek and mild person into an aggressive ‘road rager’. In

fact, throughout the study the term ‘road rage’ was dropped in favour of expressions such as

frustration or aggression. The popularity of the catchy label ‘road rage’ appears to be giving

the phenomenon a credence it does not deserve. If one citizen attacks another the crime of

assault has occurred; it should not be dignified by any lesser description of their criminal

action.

Crime Research Centre (1997)

A major investigation commissioned by the Royal Automobile Club of W.A. (Crime Research

Centre, 1997) sought to define the extent of aggressive driving in Western Australia. The

key findings of this study were reported as:

•

‘Road rage’ is not an especially new phenomenon

-

the perpetrator’s perceptions of injustice;

-

acceptability of violence to the perpetrator;

-

belief systems/view of the world as aggressive and competitive.

facilitated by certain features of urban road systems, driving behaviour and traffic

pressures. These may be amenable to preventative strategies.

frequent journeys and the increasing volume of traffic.

masculinity, driving becomes another arena of competition, struggle and apparent

hierarchies of power. The road then becomes a particularly suitable 'screen' on which

masculine power games are projected and played out.

behave (drive). The same set of rules are not always shared by everyone and

perpetrators are often responding to what they see as an insult or a violation of 'rules'

that the other driver evidently does not share. Staying within their own narrow frames of

reference, perpetrators choose to escalate the difference into an occasion to

demonstrate power.

that is spread generally in the driving population. Perpetrators of road violence, on the

91

STAYSAFE 58

whole, fall into fairly predictable categories. They tend to share the same characteristics

as perpetrators of other forms of violence. In contrast to the stereotype of the 'road rager'

as the adult, tormented to the point of madness by years of urban gridlock, the

perpetrator of road violence emerges more often as a young and inexperienced driver.

•

Young men who accept violence as a problem-solving technique, and who have

previously used violence are much more likely to be perpetrators. The media tendency to

see 'road rage' as an 'everyman' phenomenon may be designed to make better copy by

exciting listener, viewer and reader interest. However, this emphasis detracts from

seeing this phenomenon correctly, and from the necessary confrontation of the belief

systems that underpin aggression and violence. This media focus may serve to trivialise

a serious form of violence.

•

Driver related violence and aggression in Western Australia is triggered by a range of

behaviours, particularly cutting in, tailgating, holding up traffic (particularly when turning

right), road crashes, sudden lane changes and competition for parking space.

•

Responding to the behaviour of other drivers, through hand gestures or verbally, can

also spark retaliatory violence.

•

Women drivers are under-represented as victims of road violence in comparison with

both population figures and with other forms of stranger violence. However, women

seem especially vulnerable to abuse for being cautious and safety conscious - in short,

for obeying traffic laws. Men are more likely to follow 'rules' which privilege speed and

mobility and interpret the cautious behaviour of others as impeding their progress.

•

Road crashes (even minor bumps) seem to trigger serious assaults more frequently than

other incidents. Assaults with implements such as iron bars, baseball bats and cricket

bats have occurred on a number of occasions. Nevertheless, the number of reported

road violence incidents in Western Australia is a small fraction of the number of reported

crashes.

•

Driving related violence has been linked to commuter stress in some of the literature and

occurs most often in city areas, but a sizeable proportion also takes place on weekends

in the car parks of suburban shopping malls. Competition over parking spaces and minor

crashes can result in assaults and verbal abuse.

•

Road violence reported to police increased slightly between 1991 and 1995, both as a

proportion of the population and as a proportion of traffic volume in the Perth

metropolitan area. However, road violence as a proportion of all street assaults by

strangers has remained relatively stable.

•

Most victims and offenders of violent road incidents were male and non-Aboriginal, with

a median age between 27 and 28 years. The risks of being a victim peaked amongst

those persons aged between

18 and

19 years. For this age-group, the risk of

victimisation for males was four times greater than that for females.

•

Compared with other forms of street violence by strangers, victims and offenders

involved in road violence were more likely to be older, non Aboriginal and male.

Furthermore, they were less to likely to receive injuries, particularly serious injuries, from

the incident.

•

The Western Australian Police Service 'cleared' or 'solved' about half of all reported

incidents of road violence. The police were more likely to proceed with charges in more

serious cases, involving injuries to the victim.

•

Violent road incidents were more likely to occur in the afternoon than during the morning.

The time period of highest frequency was between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m., which is also when

traffic flow peaks in the Perth metropolitan area. Furthermore, traffic flow and road

violence both peaked on Fridays.

•

Most incidents occurred in the Perth metropolitan area and one in fourteen occurred in

the Perth Central Business District.

•

Intersections, particularly those with traffic lights, appear to be 'hot-spots' for road

violence. The unnecessary emergence of a driver from another car represents a danger

signal for road violence.

92

STAYSAFE 58

prosecution of offenders, the correct dissemination of information and an educational

strategy to make expected behaviour more explicit.

the iceberg' view or, alternatively, may be an indicator that the vast bulk of drivers show

tolerance and self control on most vehicle trips. It is clear that the types of driving

behaviour that initially provoked incidents of road violence occur frequently and easily on

the road. a large measure of tolerance for the mistakes of other drivers is a necessary

ingredient for road safety.

management techniques, personal safety techniques and driver tolerance should be

incorporated into training.

Elliott & Shanahan Research (unpublished)

STAYSAFE examined Barry Elliott, of Elliott & Shanahan Research, about his recent (but as

yet unpublished) work on road rage. He commented:

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING (STAYSAFE): I would like to turn to Mr Elliott with

reference to ‘road rage’. As you are aware, the Committee has been asked to look at

the issue of aggressive and intimidatory driving. We understand that you in fact also

have specifically looked at the issue of ‘road rage’ and therefore I wonder would you

care to summarise your conclusions in that regard.

Mr ELLIOTT: My conclusion is based upon examining what is happening around the

world and in Australia. To start with, ‘road rage’ has been around for a long time and in

fact Lord Byron wrote in a letter that one day he confronted somebody on the road, an

impudent fellow, that he felt he should lash—now, he did not actually do it.

What has happened of course is ‘road rage’ has been something that has become very

much in the media. If I presented a chronology of the media events in Victoria you

would be staggered. Every day for something like 8-10 weeks ‘road rage’ was in the

headlines.

I was interested to see in New South Wales recently ‘road rage’ was used in reference

to the M2 freeway and how the residents feel about the M2 freeway. We had the

Victorians police pull out the number of ‘road rage’ incidents and over a four year

period they had 70 incidents which lead to police prosecutions.

Mr GIBSON (CHAIRMAN): What is your definition of ‘road rage’, before we go any

further? The police base that on actual prosecutions or charges. ‘Road rage’ has a far

wider range than just to base it on that.

Mr ELLIOTT: My report suggests that we do what most sensible authorities consider,

and that is that ‘road rage’ is related to assault. If we talk about ‘road rage’ being

anger and frustration, then we have an entirely different set of things to look at. I think

the existing laws on assault allow the police to deal with the matters of ‘road rage’ as

they arise and as I was about to say, in Victoria, for instance, there were something

like 70 over four years, and yet there are 70 assaults per day in Victoria, assaults per

se, as distinct from assaults that occur in our road system, and so that when you put it

in perspective, ‘road rage’ has been blown out of all perspective at this point in time.

93

STAYSAFE 58

My report shares some of the advice which I think your Committee was given, for

instance, by the NRMA that we should not use the term. Where assaults occur on the

road system—

Mr GIBSON (CHAIRMAN): That is assault, not road rage.

Mr ELLIOTT: It is what ‘road rage’ is, and what most authorities around the world

would regard as ‘road rage’, and existing laws are sufficient to deal with the issue.

Incidence of aggressive and menacing driving

As noted earlier, aggressive behaviour on the road is not new. In the preceding passage of

transcript evidence, Mr Barry Elliott of Elliott and Shanahan Research commented on an

aggressive incident reported by Lord Byron. The STAYSAFE Committee also notes a much

older, and more celebrated

‘road rage’ incident, as related in the Greek tragedy of

Sophocles’ Oedipus the King. Oedipus was the son of Laius, King of Thebes, and Jocasta.

King Laius was warned by an oracle that he would die at the hands of his newly born son,

and that the boy would commit incest with Jocasta. In an attempt to avoid the prophecy,

Laius caused Oedipus to be abandoned on Mount Cithaeron to die of exposure. However,

the infant Oedipus was rescued by a shepherd of King Polybus of Corinth, and raised at

Corinth as the king’s son. As a grown man and pretender to the throne of Corinth he was

told by the Delphic oracle of the prophecy that he must inevitably kill his father and marry his

mother. Aghast and desperate to avoid his fate, Oedipus decided never to return to Corinth.

But travelling on the road he encountered King Laius of Thebes at a crossroads. Naturally,

neither Oedipus nor Laius recognised each other. A dispute over right of way ensued and

escalated, and in the subsequent quarrel and fight Oedipus killed King Laius, thus satisfying

the first part of the prophecy. He later, after solving the riddle of the Sphinx: ‘What goes on

four feet, then two feet, and three, But the more feet it goes on the weaker it be?’, saved

Thebes from the ravages of that monster. In reward, the city accorded Oedipus the Theban

throne and marriage to Jocasta, thus fulfilling the prophecy and ultimately and inevitably

leading to tragedy: a plague struck Thebes, Oedipus and Jocasta discovered their incest,

Jocasta suicided, and Oedipus, after blinding himself, entered into exile at Colonus, near

Athens. Clearly, more than two millennia ago, the notion of aggressive disputation as to

rights of travel on a roadway was plausible to a public audience!

The STAYSAFE Committee accepts that it likely that most incidents of aggressive and

menacing driving are unreported. The Crime Research Centre (1997) report into road rage

noted:

“... the number of violent incidents reported to police is known to be a small

fraction of those occurring. For example, the Australian Bureau of Statistics

National Crime and Safety Survey showed that one third of physical assaults

were reported to police in 1993.” (p.1)

But an important issue is that the media debate over ‘road rage’ includes assaults and

personal violence and property damage, but also those behaviours which are directed at

thwarting another driver but which do not fall within the ambit of overt criminal acts against a

person or property.

The Crime Research Centre (1997) report continued:

“There are reasons why other approaches to the measurement of ‘road rage’

would lead to far higher estimates of its prevalence. Higher estimates would

arise from: the use of a survey methodology rather than police records; a

broader definition of violence to include property danger; or a much more

inclusive approach to consider road incidents that include aggressive or

94

STAYSAFE 58

dangerous driving episodes such as tailgating, light flashing, obscene

gestures, horn-honking, etc.” (pp.1-2)

Offences relating to aggressive and intimidatory driving

The STAYSAFE Committee has sought information concerning the nature and types of

offences associated with aggressive driving. It seems that instances of aggressive,

intimidatory, menacing and abusive behaviour by motor vehicle drivers can be categorised

so as to distinguish between low level behaviour

(e.g., gestures, flashing headlights,

sounding of a vehicle's horn, verbal abuse, etc.), from the more extreme behaviour involving

actual physical violence and the use of weapons, including the motor vehicle as a weapon?

In general, there is a hierarchy of escalating seriousness for driving offences and the

hierarchy is based on both the degree of seriousness of the wrongful driving and also the

degree of seriousness of any injuries involved. Perhaps towards the least serious end of the

scale is the traffic offence of negligent driving, leading to the most serious criminal offence

against the person of murder, where a person deliberately kills another person through the

use of a motor vehicle. There is also a hierarchy of offences relating to acts of personal

violence, and that hierarchy is based both on the seriousness of the injury intended by the

perpetrator and the seriousness of the injury that results. It could be said that common

assault—which does not necessarily feature any injury at all, it can just be the creation of

fear in the victim—is at the bottom of the scale, again leading to the most serious criminal

offence against the person of murder.

It can be argued that caution should be exercised before introducing new hierarchies or new

aggravating features, because the law is already reasonably complex. On the other hand, if

a gap is identified it may call for action. Furthermore, it could be said that the creation of a

specific offence or hierarchy of offences may call attention to the unacceptableness of

particular forms of conduct.

The predominant view seems to be that the incidents commonly referred to as ‘road rage’

are simply examples of improper or antisocial behaviour. It seems to be current practice to

categorise human behaviours into separate areas, then explain away that type of behaviour

to certain external influences. To the lay person this could be seen as an effort to shift

responsibility for these behaviours away from the individual to external causes. Efforts to

generalise incidents of antisocial behaviour tend to legitimise such behaviours as though

they were an accepted concept.

But the behaviour of persons is judged by community standards as either acceptable or

unacceptable, regardless of whether it is associated with motor vehicles or whether it occurs

on public streets. The behaviours associated with aggressive driving are already deemed, as

general behaviours, to be unacceptable to the community and can be addressed by existing

legislation.

For example, if a person were to physically attack another person following the incident, the

persons in dispute, whether or not the incident is related to road use, would be subject to the

existing provisions relating to assault under the Crimes Act. Similarly, provisions of the

Summary Offences Act could apply to gesticulating and verbal abuse; the excessive use of a

motor vehicle’s horn could be dealt with under the Motor Traffic Regulations; and the

provisions of the Traffic Act could apply to menacing driving. The provisions of the Crimes

Act could apply to acts of physical violence and the treat of physical violence.

95

STAYSAFE 58

It is pertinent to look at the causal factors which lead to these aggressive driving incidents

occurring. Most frequently, it involves a vehicle or driver:

The sounding of a vehicles horn is lawful if intended as a warning of danger. Unfortunately,

many road users regard another road users use of the horn as a major abuse or criticism of

themselves of their driving prowess. Those persons may then regard it as necessary to

effect some form of redress on the person who had ‘defamed’ them. It is very difficult at

Court to obtain a conviction for the offence of ‘unnecessarily sound horn’. a standard

defence is almost always proffered that the horn was sounded to warn another road user of

danger and the information is subsequently dismissed.

There may be justification for the introduction of a tailgating offence of ‘follow too closely’ in

order to discourage the practice of tailgating which is practised by many road users today.

The difficulty would of course be in preparing legislation which would be practical and which

could be successfully prosecuted at Court.

There is sufficient legislation currently in place to deal with lane discipline matters, although

the STAYSAFE Committee notes that a review of the fixed penalties for infringement notices

could be appropriate.

Other, more serious instances are sometimes reported to police which involve drivers who

are:

These instances are often reported under the provisions of the Traffic Act s.4 and s.4AA.

Both Sections carry a penalty, for a first offence, of 15 penalty units and/or 9 months

imprisonment, and for a second or subsequent offences 20 penalty units and/or 12 months

imprisonment, where no person is killed or injured. The penalties prescribed for these

offences have not been increased, in real terms, for more than seventeen years and a

review would not be inappropriate.

The STAYSAFE Committee has already recommended the creation of a new offence to

cover serious incidents of deliberate or aggravated dangerous driving. This offence would

relate to instances where there is no actual collision or where a collision does not result in

injury or death but where the offender subjects the public to high levels of danger due to the

deliberate or irresponsible actions.

The STAYSAFE Committee notes that offences under the Crimes Act s.545B (Intimidation or

annoyance by violence or otherwise) and s.562AB (Stalking, intimidation with intent to cause

fear for personal safety) might indeed be applicable to the more serious instances of

aggressive driving, but also notes that offences under s.545B are apparently notoriously

difficult to prove.

Both of these criminal offences provide significant penalties upon conviction:

intimidation under s.545B

stalking under s.562AB.

96

STAYSAFE 58

These offences and penalties could be seen as a deterrent to incidents of this nature but

they are as yet untried, to the STAYSAFE Committee’s, for aggressive driving incidents.

The question of effectiveness cannot therefore be properly addressed.

The STAYSAFE Committee is interested in the question of whether the current structure of

offences for violent driving behaviour allows for an appropriate graduation of severity of

offences, similar to the graduation seen in the general forms of offences against the person?

It would seem that if an offence is dealt with by way of an offence under the Traffic Act then

there is little graduation between the different offences. Convictions under s.4 and s.4AA

both carry similar penalties. As suggested previously, an offence for 'aggravated dangerous

driving' could be considered, and if created should appear in the hierarchy at a higher level

than the s.4 offence of 'drive manner dangerous'. Alternatively, if the offence were to be

dealt with under the provisions of the Crimes Act then an identical degree of graduation

between offences is available, and the fact that the incident arises as the result of a road

related matter makes no difference. Of course, in either case a degree of graduation is

provided by the presiding Justice who, upon conviction, determines what level of penalty

should apply.

The STAYSAFE Committee is also interested in the question of whether the penalties under

current New South Wales traffic and criminal law allow offenders convicted of proven

instances of aggressive, intimidatory, menacing and abusive behaviour by drivers of motor

vehicles to be dealt with effectively. That is, are the penalties sufficient to reflect the

objectives of general and specific deterrence, to remove the immediate threat to the

community of violent driving behaviour, etc.?

Of course, the generally accepted purpose of sentencing is to:

the offender

The question of effectiveness of existing penalties should therefore be considered in terms

of these stated purposes.

The STAYSAFE Committee accepts that different people respond to different deterrents,

and even where an offence is punishable by penal servitude for life there are still those

persons who will act in contravention of the law. This is particularly the case in matters

where emotions overtake common sense and persons do not take into account the full

consequences of their actions. The Committee also acknowledges that the specific

deterrence and possible rehabilitation of an individual offender is a difficult matter to

address. While it may be that the imposition of punitive measures alone can act as a

sufficient specific deterrent to some persons it is not necessarily going to be effective in all

instances. Even more difficult to address is the question of rehabilitation through penalty. In

this sense, the Committee recognises that it may be relevant to consider the development of

some type of scheme to address the psychological aspects of these offences, perhaps a

mandatory counselling or assessment scheme, in an effort to prevent recidivism or even to

aid in determining why these offences occur in the first instance.

Police action in response to aggressive driving

The STAYSAFE Committee has sought the advice of police as to what action can be taken

in reported instances of aggressive driving.

97

STAYSAFE 58

If the incident were to occur in the presence of, and was witnessed by, police then existing

provisions allow for them to be dealt with in a simple manner with police taking immediate

action by way of infringement notice, summons or arrest depending on the exact

circumstances involved. If the matter is subsequently the subject of Court proceedings police

can attend and greatly assist the Court in its deliberations by providing their professional

account of the occurrence.

When these matters are not witnessed by police, and this would represent the vast majority

of instances, they become more difficult to deal with.

In those instances certain procedures need to be carried out prior to the taking of action to

ensure fairness, equity and judicious use of police powers. It is often the case with matters

such as these that the police investigations result in a situation where it is 'one word against

another', with police not knowing where the truth really lies.

As an example, suppose that an assault has occurred and is later reported to police. It is not

difficult to understand that it is improper and unsafe to presume that it is the wronged party

who reports the matter. The reality is that the winner of a fight rarely complains to police that

the incident has occurred, in all likelihood it will be the loser of the encounter who reports the

matter to police for a variety of reasons such as damaged pride or dissatisfaction with the

result of the incident. The person reporting an incident, therefore, is not necessarily telling

the truth or the whole truth of the matter. This reality does not bear any consistency with the

actual circumstances which lead to the incident itself and does not reveal:

This can make it very difficult for police to take appropriate action to deal effectively with the

matter. Other matters which add to the difficulties can include the lack of witness to a matter,

the independence of those persons who will provide police with a witnesses account of the

incident and the general apathy of the public who ‘don't want to get involved’.

Another difficulty arises when a minor matter is reported, say gesticulation and verbal abuse,

where the person reporting does not wish any further involvement in the matter other than to

inform police it has occurred. In cases where a person is not prepared to make a statement

and attend Court at a later time as a witness then police have no evidence to act on and are

impotent to address any wrong doing on the part of the alleged offender.

What are the procedures that are conducted by police when a motorist reports an instance of

aggressive, intimidatory, menacing or abusive behaviour by another driver? The procedure

to be followed in such instances are identical to any other matters reported to police. It

becomes necessary for the investigating officer to conduct a full investigation of the matter.

This police investigation can include:

(infringement notice,

breach report, C.A.N., charge)

98

STAYSAFE 58

It is worth noting that a variety of difficulties can be routinely encountered while conducting

enquiries into matters such as these. Examples of these difficulties that can arise include:

vehicles owned by companies

the incident complained of—unlike the requirement for a driver involved in a collision

to provide information.

Police advise that it would involve a minimum of four days to deal with a single incident of

this nature, but that this estimate of time involved is dependant upon the complexity of the

incident and is often exceeded.

The work of the STAYSAFE Committee

The STAYSAFE Committee is currently completing its deliberations on the issue of

aggressive and intimidatory driving, and is preparing a report for the consideration of

Parliament. As the Committee has not yet completed and published its report, I trust that

you will understand that the findings and the recommendations of the report cannot be

discussed in any detail.

The STAYSAFE Committee has noted the support of both the Government and Opposition

for a review of the structure of offences and penalties for instances of aggressive driving.

Some of the specific issues being examined by the Committee include, for example, the

possible introduction of a new offence of abusive driving into the Traffic Act, the possibility of

introducing an indictable offence of menacing or aggressive driving into the Crimes Act, and

a review of the penalties currently applicable for existing offences that can be used in

prosecuting incidents of aggressive driving behaviour.

The STAYSAFE Committee is also mindful of the role of communication in raising and

directing community attitudes towards road behaviour. The very effective use of media and

public education to support mandatory seat belt wearing and to promote random breath

testing as a drink-driving countermeasure has demonstrated that the community is

responsive to road safety-related messages. The use of the media and public education to

promote courteous driving, and to stigmatise abusive and aggressive driving, may prove to

be one of the strategies to promote the sharing of the road by different road users, and may

therefore have effect in reducing road trauma and improving safe road behaviours.

The STAYSAFE Committee will, of course, welcome the advice of the legal profession

regarding aggressive driving and the law, as it welcomes advice from other sectors of the

community and from road safety and police authorities.

References

Carthy, T., Packham, D., Rhodes-Defty, N., Salter, D. & Silcock, D. (1993). Risk and safety

on the roads: Perceptions and attitudes. Basingstoke, Hampshire: AA Foundation for

Road Safety Research.

99

STAYSAFE 58

Crime Research Centre (1997). Road rage: Driving related violence in Western Australia.

Perth, WA: Royal Automobile Club of Western Australia.

Grey, E.M., Triggs, T.J. & Haworth, N.L. (1989). Driver aggression: The role of personality,

social characteristics, risk and motivation. Report CR 81. Canberra ACT: Federal Office

of Road Safety (FORS).

Wright, P.G., Gaulton, R.E. & Miller, I. (1997). Road rage: An exploratory study. Wellington,

New Zealand: New Zealand Police.

100

STAYSAFE 58

ROAD RAGE: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY

P.G. Wright, P.E. Gaulton & I. Miller

New Zealand Police

SOURCE: Wright, P.G., Gaulton, P.E. & Miller, I.

(1997).

Road rage: An exploratory study.

Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Police.

Sixteen cases of road aggression were examined. Findings are reported with

the caution that such a small sample can only provide conclusions that are

indicative of the factors involved. A more detailed study is required.

However, this study limited as it is suggests that the popular notion that

getting behind the wheel of a car taps some primal urge to make an otherwise

meek and mild person an aggressive road rager is unlikely to hold true.

Driving is an inherently frustrating task. Frustration is built into our road

system with differing speed laws for trucks and cars on our narrow two-lane,

two-way system. The laws on merging are not clear to the average motorist.

We must share the road with the learner driver, the elderly and the tourist

from overseas. Even a careful driver will sometimes fail to signal, or

inadvertently obstruct another vehicle’s progress. Skilled drivers are often

intolerant of drivers who do not perform at what they see as their level. There

is a lack of consideration for the learner, the elderly or sometimes even the

driver who sticks to the speed limit. The study suggests that those drivers

who vent that frustration in acts of aggression are likely to demonstrate that

same lack of personal restraint on other areas of their life. Almost all acts of

violence between drivers end in court with offenders facing assault or more

serious charges. Throughout this study the term road rage has been dropped

in favour of expressions such as frustration or aggression. The popularity of

the catchy label ‘road rage’ appears to be giving the phenomenon a credence

it does not deserve. If one citizens attacks another the crime of assault has

occurred. It should not be dignified by any lesser description of their criminal

action.

Introduction

Sixteen incidents in which car drivers have exhibited aggression—verbally, or actually

coming to blows following a driving incident, have been examined. This number of incidents

is far too small a sample from which to draw any findings that can be relied upon without

further study. However, given the public interest on the topic and given the desire expressed

for police advice, these tentative results are put forward with that caution.

With such a small sample, details cannot be provided of each case because the

identification of the persons involved would be possible. Where the data can be grouped it is

reported.

101

STAYSAFE 58

What causes road rage incidents?

In all cases the origin of the incident has been a case of poor, careless or risky driving.

Incidents such as pulling our without looking, following closely or competitive merging have

been behind the incidents. Most of these driving transgressions have been ‘innocent’ in that

there was no intent to offend. In a few cases drivers could be termed pushy, but generally

carelessness or inexperience was the contributory factor.

However, it seems the recipients of the poor driving interpreted the incident as a personal

affront and reacted emotionally.

VICTIM

OFFENDER

Careless

Reckless

Pushy

Inexperienced

Strong emotional reaction

6

2

4

4

16

(n = 16)

Who gets involved?

Aggressive drivers and their victims come from all walks of life. Occupations in our small

sample ranged from real estate, skilled technical workers to the unemployed. There is a

slight bias toward the victims being inexperienced drivers, with four students being included

in the victim sample.

Does getting behind the wheel turn meek and mild

persons into road ragers?

This is probably the critical issue. If the answer is ‘No’, then the basis for road rage is

undermined. In other words, it is the same as bar rage, party rage, or the recently coined

footpath rage. Does the motor vehicle bring out some form of primal urge as has been

speculated by at least one New Zealand psychologist?

This study suggests a tentative ‘No’.

The offender group had a relatively high proportion of criminal offending in its past.

CRIMINAL OFFENDING IN PAST

Aggressor

Victim

73%

31%

The convictions held by offenders included disorderly behaviour, drink driving, disqualified

driving, fighting, theft, burglary, assault with a weapon, assault, drug and firearms offences.

The study suggests the perpetrator of road rage is not likely to be a meek and mild person

whose primal urges are evoked by being behind the wheel of a vehicle.

102

STAYSAFE 58

However, victims were often not innocent of contributing to the ultimate outcome. The

adage it takes two to tango seems to apply. Where the victim also responded

aggressively, the result was almost always an escalation to violence.

Forms of assault

Verbal abuse & threats

1

Punches

7

Weapon used

6

Vehicle used

2

The weapon chosen suggests the intention to assault is not premeditated, with any item to

hand being used. Tyre levers, rocks and a golf club are examples.

The injuries sustained in these incidents include severe cuts, bruising and a depressed skull

facture.

Victims are not always blameless. In three cases, charges for retaliation by way of fighting

or assault or driving dangerously resulted.

Sex and chivalry

Perpetrators of road aggression are almost always male. Victims are similarly more likely to

be male, although women to appear.

AGGRESSOR

VICTIM

(N = 17)*

(N = 16)

MALE

16

13

FEMALE

1

3

*

NOTE: In one case both driver and passenger were

involved in attacking another driver.

There were no instances of men doing more than verbally abusing women. The only

physical assault on a woman was by another woman. If a chivalry factor exists, it is a weak

one which permits verbal abuse, but may or may not stop short of physical violence. The

chivalry factor is not strong enough that women could take any comfort from it.

103

STAYSAFE 58

Communications between drivers

Most incidents occurred in daylight in fine weather.

FINE

WET

DAYLIGHT

12

Nil

DARK

Nil

2

The most common scenario suggest that non verbal communication between drivers is

occurring. Signals of abuse such as fists, fingers, or horns were not always reported in the

cases under study, but could well have been the stimulus that turned frustration into

aggression. Paradoxically, communication offers the same chance of defusing these

situations. We have several commonly understood signals for ‘up you’ but not one for

‘sorry’.

The open handed wave acknowledging a transgression seems worthy of trial. If it catches

on as a ‘sorry’ signal some incidents may be easily defused. Police will discuss this issue

with the New Zealand Automobile Association to see if such a signal might be accepted by

the motoring public. In the meantime the wave of acceptance of guilt appears a more

prudent course than doggedly refusing to acknowledge a driving error, which in itself may

increase frustration.

Alcohol the aggravator?

In this study none of the assailants were affected by alcohol. Whether this is a factor of

significance is not clear. In most other areas of policing, alcohol exacerbates situations.

The reported incidents occurred primarily in daylight hours when drinking and driving is less

prevalent. Given the police attention to drinking, those drivers under the weather may not

take the risk of drawing attention to themselves.

Frustration and aggression in the road rage context seem to be a sober enterprise.

Sociological and psychological factors

Road rage is only another form of aggression. The causes of incidents are complex and

involve combined offender, victim, and environmental factors. However, frustration,

disregard for others, and perceived insults by the offender seem to be precipitating factors.

It is likely that offenders attribute negative intentions towards them by the actions of victims

and respond aggressively, even if the intention is innocent.

Offender factors include psychological features such as aggressiveness, territoriality and

self-centredness. Aggression increases with fatigue, low tolerance, general life stresses,

substance abuse and poor impulse control. Offenders may also exhibit other patterns such

as bullying, exploitiveness and irresponsibility. In many cases road rage is only another

manifestation of dysfunctional behaviour. Damage (however slight) or the threat of damage

to their vehicles is perceived as a personal insult deserving great and immediate retaliation.

104

STAYSAFE 58

FACTORS IN ‘ROAD RAGE’

Precipitating Event

Offender

+

Factors

Factors

Environmental Factors

Violent Behaviour

Victims may wittingly or unwittingly precipitate events leading to aggression. Disregard,

inattention, poor driving and failure to communicate are potent triggers of angry responses in

others that frequently lead to aggressive interactions. Failure to follow simple driving rules is

often a factor. Examples might include tailgating, following with lights on high beam, not

signalling lane changes or turns, moving out, closing the gap to prevent a lane change, and

failing to give way. All of these are potential sources of negative interactions with other

drivers. These factors are compounded by environmental factors such as traffic density,

weather conditions, poor light, heat and humidity, high noise levels and road features.

Advice to motorists

The following seems to be good advice:

to signal you are ‘sorry’. An open handed wave might be useful.

-

if the other driver is ahead let the gap increase;

-

if the other driver is tailgating you maintain a steady speed or pull over and let

him or her pass;

-

if you are really concerned, drive to a police station or stop by a police patrol.

Conclusions

Assaults by one driver on another are criminal behaviour. The maximum penalties range

from three months imprisonment for common assault, five years for assault with a weapon,

to ten years for assault with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. In almost all cases the

offenders are successfully prosecuted.

The consequences of road aggression need to be publicised as a deterrent.

The police will explore with the New Zealand Automobile Association and the Land

Transport Safety Authority the possibility of promoting a ‘sorry’ signal that can be used to

defuse situations in which one driver inconveniences another.

105

STAYSAFE 58

Police will work with the Land Transport Safety Authority to clarify the law where

misunderstandings appear to precipitate disagreements between drivers. The law on

merging appears a likely contender. These causes could be publicised as driving tipos and

given more complete treatment in publications such as the Road Code.

106

STAYSAFE 58

ROAD TRAUMA - AN ACT OF VIOLENCE?

L. Mooren

Roads and Traffic Authority

SOURCE: Mooren, L. (1997). Road trauma - an

act of violence? Paper presented at the Sixth

International

Conference

on

Safe

Communities:Consolidating

Communities

Against Violence, Johannesburg, South Africa,

15-19 October, 1997.

The regulatory and educational programs designed to reduce road trauma in

New South Wales aim at behavioural factors which are in turn manifestations

of some underlying individual or social motivation. For example, we aim to

control or influence the tendencies of drivers to choose whether or not to drink

and drive, or to drive within the legal speed limit, or to wear a seat belt. The

assumption underlying our reliance on a general ‘deterrence strategy’ is that

people will rationally weight up the benefits and disbenefits and decide, on

balance that the penalty for disobedience is likely to be too high. We

complement this with a guilt-driven inducement in our public education

program. Although the general deterrence approach and ‘harm’ focussed

campaign strategy has been quite effective, perhaps we cannot always

assume that people will be deterred by the threat of personal penalty. A closer

look at risk taking and aggression associated with road use could provide

some clues as to whether we understand enough about reasons for

dangerous road use to assure ourselves that the best countermeasures are

used. An examination of research data combined with analysis from different

social perspectives has found that there are a number of key issues which

warrant investigation. These include:

aggression and the involvement of these conditions and factors in road

trauma:

incidence of aggression related road trauma:

past experience of bullying and harassment; and

These issues are threads that run through the literature and community

discussion on road violence. They provide springboards for developing

community approaches to analysing and finding new solutions to addressing

road trauma causation. The author proposes areas of related research

directed towards a more comprehensive understanding of the underlying

motives affecting road trauma.

107

STAYSAFE 58

Introduction

Injury as a result of road violence happens. We know this. But searching the literature

reveals surprisingly little about it. Searching the media clips on the other hand reveals a lot

about it. Road Rage has splashed itself across many a newspaper over recent years in

Australia and in other countries as well.

The most obvious manifestations of this reported phenomena have varied in different

countries. I’ve seen reports of car-jacking in South Africa, freeway shootings in Los Angeles

and the use of cars to run down pedestrians and cyclists in Australia. While these are the

extreme reported cases of road violence, and rational people can be convinced that these

behaviours are not common occurrences, governments feel obliged to act decisively to curb

such acts to minimise harm, if not fear of such harm, in the community. New legislation with

tough penalties was recently enacted in New South Wales to send a signal that the

Government would not tolerate acts of violence on the road. Offences of Menacing Driving

with intent to injure and Predatory Driving were enacted carrying severe penalties including

gaol terms of up to 7 years.

However, when I set for myself the task of investigating road aggression and intentional road

injury I had little idea of the difficulty I would have in defining the terms. Being responsible for

the road safety program in the State of New South Wales I am determined to satisfy myself

that in concentrating on the ‘known’ major road trauma factors (speeding and drink driving,

for example) am not overlooking some important underlying motivational factors.

The focus of this paper is the question of whether aggression, intentional injury or violence

are worth investigating as underlying motivational factors in road trauma.

Conventional approach

The focus of road safety researchers and practitioners in Australia, guided by the American

injury epidemiologist, William Haddon, has been based on road environment, vehicle and

behavioural risk management analysis and interventions. Within the behavioural sphere, the

focus has been on behaviours on the road which have found to be most prevalently

indicated in post crash analyses by police and expert accident investigators (especially

speeding and driving whilst intoxicated). These behaviours are then ‘managed’ largely

through educative and regulatory means. General deterrence is the prime means of

containing road trauma in this country.

Threatening people with sanctions is a stronger behavioural deterrent than the threat of

personal harm. This is because where the enforcement and prosecution is apparent enough

people will believe that they are far more likely to get caught and be punished than to come

to grief in a road crash. Statistically, it is more likely that one will get booked for a traffic

offence than have a crash.

Therefore. Australian road safety campaigns appeal to the community to take heed of the

road trauma problem by reminding people of the harm and tragedy of road crashes, while at

the same time threaten to punish those for performing specific unsafe behaviours on the

road.

Road deaths and serious injury have been reduced dramatically in the past two decades

while applying this approach in Australia, and community attitudes and behaviours have

changed significantly during this time

(particularly with regard to drinking and driving).

However, there is still very widespread ‘non-compliance’ with the behavioural objectives of

108

STAYSAFE 58

Australian road safety experts. For example, 80%+ drivers in New South Wales still regularly

disobey speed limits and alcohol use is still the second biggest factor involved in serious

injury crashes.

Still, the notion that we should broaden and deepen our analysis of road trauma motivational

factors and/or seek broader community involvement in road safety’ are notions that frighten

the purists within the Australian road safety

‘community’, especially the behavioural

scientists.

They have reason to be frightened. If we let go of what we know to be effective

countermeasures in road safety, we can easily lose the gains we have made. It is vital that

we do not lose sight of the behavioural factors involved in road crashes and road injury. It is

also important to keep devoting resources to interventions which are known to work.

However, part of the vision of road safety practitioners is ‘voluntary compliance’. That is, we

look to a future world where people will choose to comply with safety related rules of the

road whether or not they fear getting caught by the police. To this end -- and in effort to

multiply actions to promote road safety

-- the commitment to broadening community

participation has been endorsed and specifically integrated into National and State road

safety strategies right across Australia since in 1991 New South Wales published its Road

Safety 2000 Strategic Plan.

If we are seeking voluntary participation and compliance to our rules by the broader

community and individuals within it we need to understand motivational factors and some of

the social context which might explain where the compliance and non-compliance

motivations come from.

People have reasons for making unsafe choices (eg to speed or to drive while intoxicated).

These reasons are not necessarily good reasons, nor bad reasons. The truth is that we

know very little about these reasons.

I believe we can make some marginal gain in road safety terms with a fuller understanding of

these underlying motives for non-compliant road behaviour. This is because, increasingly, it

is getting more difficult in Australia to believe that ignorance, or lack of awareness, is a

reason for the problem of unsafe road behaviour. The mass media advertising campaigns

conducted in the Australian States of Victoria and New South Wales have achieved

extremely high recall ratings against any advertising or marketing benchmarks. There is a

great deal of community discussion on road safety issues as reflected in the media, with

road safety related stories being reported daily.

Generally, Australians are aware of the of the road trauma risks associated with speeding

and drink driving. However, even those who are aware of the risks are still prepared to take

the risks themselves. Others are, perhaps more than prepared to take the risks. We don’t

know why.

Road trauma and violence - Data difficulties

While there is little empirical evidence to suggest that intentional injury is a significant factor

in road trauma, and some researchers have concluded that aggression is not worth

exploring as a factor, it may be a self-fulfilling gap in our analysis. The bulk of human factor

research and data collection in Australian road safety has been focused through a

behavioural psychology conceptual framework to the virtual exclusion of social analysis.

Currently, Police reports on road deaths and serious injury crashes don’t reveal many clues

as to the intentions of the perpetrators of the injury-causing behaviour. Our road injury data

109

STAYSAFE 58

base does not keep information on causality to the necessary degree for analysis of road

aggression. In fact, instances of (known) cases of assault or suicide are taken out of the

road statistics and placed in the crime data base kept by the Attorney General’s Department.

Although the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) has not deliberately left responsibility for

intentional road injury to other government departments, fragmentation of injury data makes

it difficult for an organisation - whether health, crime or roads-focused - to assess, let alone

effectively address, these injuries.

While it could be argued that a continued exclusive focus on non-intentional road injury

prevention will probably yield the best results for injury reduction, it is important that public

health and road safety authorities stop placing suicide and intentional injury in the too hard

basket. There is a growing concern about community violence and youth suicides are

reported to be reaching ‘epidemic proportions.’

But while the focus of the Sixth International Conference on Safe Communities on violence

signifies a new global commitment to finding solutions to violence related injury, new

methods of data collection and analysis are required to enable interventions to be based in

science as well as collective community will. Furthermore, these new methods require

perspectives from a broader range of disciplines than is the case for existing health and

injury epidemiological methods.

We need also to check our assumptions underlying our conceptual framework for human

factor road trauma analysis. The notion that the general deterrence approach will be

successful if only we can do enough of it enough of the time, is based on the assumption

that people would normally tend to avoid risk (of harm or penalty).

There is clear cause to question this notion when there is a whole body of thought termed

‘risk homeostasis’ which points to the likelihood of road users to extend their risks to the

maximum they are prepared to take whenever in pursuit their road travel related objectives.

Indeed some have theorists have indicated that the risk taking act is sometimes an objective

of the road user.

In short, a new research agenda must emerge to evolve a more sophisticated understanding

of underlying social and human motivational factors involved in road trauma. We need to

examine risk taking, aggression and violence dispassionately to understand the social and

human causes of road injury in order that we can devise more effective prevention

strategies.

Towards a new research agenda - Method of development

A group of Australian road safety researchers (Grey, Triggs & Haworth, 1989) concluded

that looking for causal links between aggression and road crashes would not be worthwhile.

This is because they thought it would be difficult to psychometrically measure aggressive

personality traits of road users. And anyway even if we did have the technology to do so, the

study of personality and social characteristics of crash involved drivers may not be

productive as these traits have been found to change over time, age and situation.’ In other

words, if a psychologist can’t work out how to do it, it shouldn’t be done.

l don’t accept this. So, I recently set up a research project which called upon academic

leaders from a range of disciplines outside the public health aid road safety arena to react to

the problem of road aggression.

110

STAYSAFE 58

This ‘think tank’ of academics from four Australian Universities was consulted through some

initial correspondence outlining issues to be explored and were then assembled in a

workshop to spend a day brainstorming and analysing concepts aid ways to define and

examine specific phenomena. The disciplines called upon included, cultural anthropology,

social psychology, sociology, criminology, urban planning, philosophy, industrial relations,

leisure studies, and education. Discussion was facilitated by a social research scientist; and

road safety authority and police representatives attended to clarify issues when required.

Prior to the workshop the researcher posed eight questions to the think tank group and

incorporated their responses in a discussion paper. The questions were:

1. What are the conceptual issues [involved in road violence] and

what labels should we use?

2. What are the consequences of the labels we use?

3. How large Is the problem?

4. What is ‘risk’? Why do people take risks or act violently?

5. What groups are most involved?

6. How can we understand the process [of road violence leading to

injury] from a broader sociological perspective?

7. What leads to the incidence, or increase in the incidence of road

violence?

8. What methods could we use to investigate the problem?

Briefed on what could be gleaned from the literature on road aggression and road violence,

these professionals discussed their understandings and views on how to investigate the

problem further. The intended outcome was to begin to refine a theoretical framework from

which productive empirical research projects could be defined.

Taking each of the exploratory research questions in order tie following presents a direction

for learning more about some of tie motivations underlying tie high risk behavioural

manifestations associated with road trauma.

Conceptual issues

The group of ‘non-road safety’ analysts agreed that it is important to distinguish between

risk-taking behaviours and deliberately aggressive behaviours. Much of the complexity of

human behaviour and social interaction is apparent in road behaviour. Social conflict as well

as social harmony is likely to be evident in various types of road related human interactions.

Social interaction on the road reflects the assertion of individual and group

‘rights,’

competition and degrees of agreement to social convention, as much as compliance or

otherwise to institutionalised road rules.

As a roads provider, the Roads and Traffic Authority is concerned with road user

dissatisfaction and is committed to equity of access to New South Wales roads and road

facilities. To this end, harmonious road sharing is actively promoted, given the known

potential conflicts between road users.

111

STAYSAFE 58

For this reason and for the purpose of determining underlying human crash factors it is

important to understand the motives for the display of aggression.

There are essentially three theoretical approaches to the study of aggression, biological,

external causes, and social learning. Most analysts would assume that aggressive behaviour

is influenced by some combination of all three factors.

It is useful to distinguish gradients of aggression from wilful intent to injure to various forms

of social expression, whilst applying the analysis to road behaviour. While deliberate acts of

violent assault is relatively uncommon in driving practice, drivers may more commonly

display their displeasure in various forms of aggressive gestures whilst driving. The

likelihood of these gradients of aggression are depicted in the pyramid below.

Murder

Suicide

Violent

Intended harm

Chronic Aggression or

Expression of Anger

Impulsive, frustrated response

FIGURE 1: Gradients of aggression

The likely percentages of the population which display these practices on the road is subject

to further investigation and will be discussed later in this paper.

Consequences of labels

There is a broad spectrum of road behaviours and attitudes which could be examined whilst

trying to discover underlying social and psychological factors involved in injury crashes.

When looking [at] deliberate aggression, the labels used could lead to quite a variety of

interventions.

If for example we are dealing with individuals with a history or pattern of violent behaviour

who would deliberately use a motor vehicle as a weapon, then the approach would be

similar to that which would be used for any violent criminal. If, on the other hand, we are

addressing aggressive driving as a manifestation of common stress, then health promotion

interventions may be more suitable.

It is important to define clearly the kinds of concepts which could segment the problems

before attempting to find solutions.

112

STAYSAFE 58

How large is the problem?

It is difficult at this stage to accurately quantify the level of road aggression or violence

occurring due to insufficient definitions and fragmentation of injury data sets. The Automobile

Association in the United Kingdom estimate that the likelihood of being killed in a road rage

incident could be as low as 1 in 9.5 million. They together with many other road safety

agencies are concerned that the reports in the media could greatly distort the true picture

leading to resources being invested in dealing with the problem.

However as there is a growing public concern about the problem, it is appropriate to

examine what information has been collected. A number of recent studies and information

gained from particular initiatives relating to road aggression and violence could shed some

light on the types of behaviours which are of concern to road users, and which could

perhaps explain motivations for a number of unsafe road use practices.

The Rods and Traffic Authority established a telephone hotline last year for road users to

phone in and advise their complaints about road sharing problems. Out of 1,070 calls

received, 29% complained of driver aggression or inconsiderate road use. Other callers

complained of incompetent, dangerous, careless or illegal road use practices.

TABLE 1: Motorists reporting experience as victims of road aggression (from

Autombile Association, United Kingdom)

Type of Behaviour

% of Motorists (n=526)

62

close behind)

59

motorist was annoyed.

48

21

prevented from manoeuvring my

vehicle

16

1

12

113

STAYSAFE 58

The British Automobile Association recently surveyed 526 drivers to study the extent to

which British motorists had experienced and perpetrated particular types of aggression when

driving. When asked whether the behaviour of motorists has changed in recent years 62%

felt that motorist behaviour had worsened in recent years.

When asked the types of behaviour they had experienced from other drivers in the past 12

months a range of aggressive behaviours were reported with 88% of all respondents

claiming to have experienced aggressive road behaviour. Tables 1 and 2 contain some of

the findings from this survey.

According to the study, only 12% of respondents reported that they had not been subjected

to aggressive road behaviour. The majority of motorists had been tailgated (62%) and had

lights flashed at them by other motorists (59%). About half (48%) had received aggressive or

rude gestures. One in five had been deliberately obstructed, and fewer had received verbal

abuse (16%). Only 1% reported having been physically assaulted by another motorist.

Men were more likely than women to have received aggressive or rude gestures (52% and

42% respectively), verbal abuse (19% and 10% respectively) and had been deliberately

obstructed (24% and 17% respectively).

The population sample was also asked whether they had themselves behaved aggressively

towards other road users. The results are shown in Table 2 below.

TABLE 2: Motorists reporting experience as perpetrators of road aggression (from

Automobile Association, United Kingdom)

Type of Behaviour

% of Motorists (n=526)

Flashed lights at them when annoyed

45

with other motorists

Given aggressive or rude gestures

22

Given verbal abuse

12

Aggressive tailgating (driving up very

6

close behind)

Deliberately obstructed or prevented

5

from manoeuvring their vehicle

Physically assaulted another motorist

0

None of these

40

114

STAYSAFE 58

Almost half (45%) of all motorists claimed, Within the last 12 months, to have flashed their

lights at another motorist when annoyed with them. One in five (22%) have aggressive or

rude gestures, and 12% have given other motorists verbal abuse. Around in twenty admit to

having tailgated another driver (6%) and 5% report having deliberately obstructed another

car. One respondent claimed to have physically assaulted another driver in the last 12

months.

A study was recently conducted by Mizell and Company for the AAA Foundation for Traffic

police departments and insurance companies. For the purpose of this study ‘aggressive

driving’ was defined as “an incident in which an angry or impatient motorist or passenger,

intentionally injures or kills another motorist, passenger or pedestrian in response to a traffic

dispute, altercation or grievance”

This study found that, for a period of just over 6 ½ years, over 10,000 Americans were killed

or injured as a result of aggressive driving. On average 1500 people were seriously injured

per year between 1990 and 1996, with increased numbers of people each successive year.

TABLE 3: Known incidents of aggressive driving causing injury or death (from AAA

Foundation for Traffic Safety, United States)

1990

1,129

1991

1,297

1992

1,478

1993

1,555

1994

1,669

1995

1,708

1996

1,201*

* January through September 1996 only, the rate of annual increases indicate

that the 1996 total could reach 1,800 incidences.

When considering violence towards oneself various authors have estimated that between

1.6%-15% of road deaths are suicides. A number of researchers have reported that suicidal

road use has been increasing since the mid 1970s. They also say that suicides could be

significantly under-reported as the conclusive determination of intentional self requires more

evidence than is often available.

Why do people take risks or act violently? Who does it?

Young male drivers (aged 17 - 24 years) are thought to be the group which is at the top of

the high risk road user population. Many researchers put this down to the exuberance of

youth, feelings of invincibility and the need for expression of prowess.

In other cases, the demands of daily life could cause road users to take risks or act violently

on the road. Road rage is said to be of the same genesis as shopping trolley rage or any

other expression of frustration in a social setting.

robberies, and crashes resulting from other factors such as drinking driving or accidental hit & run.

115

STAYSAFE 58

However, Mizell, in examining cases of aggressive driving in the US found a range of

reasons for road aggression. In doing so he makes the point that the so-called ‘reasons’

should be understood as triggers to the aggressive action. That is, the motivation for the

level of aggression displayed often has little to do with the immediate traffic dispute. The

traffic dispute is best seen as the last straw with the underlying motivator being an unrelated

factor causing pent-up anger than the often trivial incident which sparks a violent road

related response.

The key threads running through the core of these reasons or triggers are similar to other

community violence motivators. These include domestic disputation, racial hatred, alienation

and sense of powerlessness.

A further cause of aggressive road use or incidence of ‘road rage’ identified by Matthew Joint

is overcrowding. He believes that human beings, like other animals are territorial and will

display aggression towards those who are seen to invade their ‘personal space’. However he

observes that the aggressive reaction to this in invasion is more likely to be practiced by a

motorist than a pedestrian. Joint thinks this may be because:

1.

the exertion of walking provides a release of pent-up tension. whereas

driving does not allow a physical outlet for built up stress;

2.

congestion in road traffic provides a driver

(confined to lanes) few

options for avoiding delays, whereas pedestrians can more easily

manoeuvre around other pedestrians;

3.

the risk of more serious physical and property damage are greater in a

vehicle than in the event of accidentally bumping into another

pedestrian; and

4.

drivers (more so than pedestrians) tend to view themselves as having

superior skills and therefore rights than other (more inferior) road users.

Ironically though, as discussed earlier, the more inexperienced the driver the more likely

he/she is to act aggressively. However, at the other end of the spectrum one could

hypothesise that familiarity could result in an overconfidence in turn resulting in risk taking.

Diagram 2 shows this graphically.

This notion has yet to be fully tested. However, studies of youth. particularly young male

drivers offer support for the connection with inexperience and higher risk of road injury.

Moreover research into driver fatigue have found some support for the notion that familiarity

breeds risk.

Confident/Competent

Familiarity/

Boredom/

Thrill of

Inexperience

Complacency

Monotony

Experimentation

More risk

More risk

FIGURE 2: Risk increases related to inexperience and over-experience

116

STAYSAFE 58

Considering cases of self-inflicted injury and suicide, there are reasons to suspect that with

the growth of youth suicide in Australia some it happens on the roads. As mentioned earlier

there have been clear cases of pedestrian and vehicle involvement in road related suicide in

Australia. In New South Wales, where there is a note or it is otherwise proven that the death

was intentional, the incident is removed from the road trauma data base ? making it difficult

to determine the magnitude of the problem. However, recent reports of youth suicide

overtaking the rates of youth road deaths could be a bit misleading.

The rate of suicide in the United States in 1990 was 12.1 per 100.000 population. It is

estimated that approximately 150/0 of road deaths in this country are suicides. Moreover,

Nelson reports that suicidal people have twice as many road accidents as non-suicidal

people. He believes that people over the age of 65 years old (past retirement) are at greater

risk than any other age group.

Nelson examined a number of American road crashes which were found to be homicides

and suicides owing to the circumstances of these cases. He concludes that ‘suicide and

murders with motor vehicles occur frequently and may appear to the untrained or unwary as

an “accident”.’

Again there could be gradients of recklessness, aggression and self-harm associated with

the stress of life pressures, including unemployment, marital problems, and loneliness

involved in road trauma risk behaviour. Further psychiatric and sociological research could

assist to fill out the picture and confirm or deny Nelson’s claims.

It may be useful to devise and test a continuum of self destructiveness and self delusion

rather than to treat homicidal/suicidal crashes and accidental crashes as absolutes, or

discrete categories.

A broader sociological perspective

A recent study conducted in the State of Western Australia found that one in ten of the 7,000

police reports of assaults between 1991 and 1995 involved driving related violence against

strangers. However, while 30,000 crashes are reported to the Western Australian Police

each year involving 200 fatalities, only 160 incidences of road violence is reported.

This study concludes that road violence is not a particularly large problem, nor a new

problem and that it can be explained by existing social theories of violence (especially male

violence). Indeed, our ‘think tank’ also arrived at the conclusion that male violence and

harassment based on gender and/or race are evident in many reports of driver aggression.

From a sociological perspective it is likely that where there is a basis for social friction, this

friction is as likely to manifest on the road as in the home or workplace or other social

settings.

There may be considerably less physical harm resulting directly from road aggression than is

feared. Aggressive exchanges between road users could be exacerbating stress and

discomfort but rarely culminates in physical assault.

Some academics think that the release of aggression related stress could actually be

cathartic such that the threatening acts of rage on the road may prevent a more serious form

of assault (which might have otherwise occurred in the home later.) If this is the case, the

expression of aggression by drivers could be seen as a sharing of socially stimulated stress

thereby diffusing the potentially more destructive outburst.

117

STAYSAFE 58

Other researchers disagree. Goleman advises that:

“Anger builds on anger, the emotional brain heats up. By then rage,

unhampered by reason easily erupts in violence.”

Anger and aggression are thought to be exhilarating (unlike the emotion of sadness). In this

sense, it would appear to be a problem similar to the risk homeostasis referred to by Wilde.

Aggression expressed between road users could be both a reflection of social or community

breakdown and a pressure valve mechanism for the community members who are affected

by this breakdown. In the case where a motorist is alienated from others and feels

constrained by rules or other impediments which seem (to the motorist, at the time) arbitrary,

there may be a sense of unfairness. This sense of unfairness could spark personal

frustration or outrage which in turn could be expressed as aggression. In this way the

motorist can move from the feeling of powerlessness to a feeling of power where the

aggressive road act could carry a sense of conquest.

Another key theme which is emerging from the literature and discussions is that of the

human-machine hybrid which gives individual drivers the feeling of being superhuman such

that he or she is alienated from and superior to the rest of the community whilst driving a

motor vehicle. This can result in driver fantasy disguising the true mortality and vulnerability

of oneself and other human beings using the road. Gyorgy Scrinis, Melbourne University,

believes that aggressive driver behaviour may be caused by the car itself. He writes of the

modem driving experience,

“The enclosed cabin, the speed of car travel, and the demands put on driver,

make it difficult for them to develop a concern or empathy with the people or

places they flash past. The world is encountered as a series of images that

flow through the television-like windscreen...In these ways, the car profoundly

mediates and shapes the driver’s way of encountering the world.”

Social relations on the road therefore become impersonal and uncaring. Whilst there may be

no intention to injure others, there is little regard for other road users as people with an equal

right to be there. Modern road use is said to be individualistic with no real sense of being a

community of travellers.

A reckless form of aggression where there is no intent by the road user to injure another

might require both punitive and non-punitive treatments to curb this behaviour.

It has been said that those who intentionally injure themselves or others on the road would

probably commit some act of violence regardless of the setting. The Western Australian

Crime Research Centre advise that:

“Young men who accept violence as a problem-solving technique, and who

have previously used violence are in much more likely to be perpetrators [of

road violence].”

Youth and inexperience is cited as another key theme to pursue in the new research

agenda. Again the Western Australian study found that:

“In contrast to the

[media] stereotype of the

‘road rager’ as the adult,

tormented to the point of madness by years of urban gridlock, the perpetrator

of road violence emerges more often as a young and inexperienced driver.”

This was also highlighted in a study conducted by Brian Sweeny and Associates for

Australian Associated Motor Insurers Limited (AAMI). The AAMI research found that 18-24

year olds were more likely, than other age groups, to take risks, speed and were much more

likely to drive aggressively. The need for a display of masculinity combined with the mixed

messages young men and women receive regarding the freedom, power and protection

118

STAYSAFE 58

associated with driving a motor vehicle are cited as reasons for risk taking and aggressive

driving.

Conclusions

This paper aims at drawing together some themes which run across the literature and recent

research about road aggression and intentional road injury with a view to highlighting some

directions for further investigation. A broader social research methodology applied to road

safety research will enable a deeper analysis and fuller explanation of road user behaviour.

Routine crash data collection would be more informative if traffic, health and crime statistics

could be more easily linked.

There is a call for further research into some key areas indicated by this initial exploration of

underlying social factors involved in road trauma. The areas which hold most promise for

fruitful lessons are:

1. Youth, masculinity and the related social meanings attached to road use;

2. Psychiatric factors and mental illness including depression and intentional

aggression and the involvement of these conditions and factors in road

trauma:

3. Studies of community violence and suicide patterns and patterns of the

incidence of aggression related road trauma;

4. The backgrounds of perpetrators of road aggression especially of any past

experience of bullying and harassment: and

5. Links between inexperienced drivers and road aggression.

With a further examination of these and perhaps other sociological aspects of road use we

can gain a fuller appreciation of road trauma behavioural risk and aggression motivators

thereby enabling us to refine our injury prevention strategies.

References

AAMI, (1996). Crash Index Summary, June 1995-June 1996. Melbourne, Vic.: AAMI.

Connell, D. & Joint M. (1997). Driver aggression. In AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety (Ed).

Aggressive driving: Three studies. Washington DC.: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.

Frank Small & Associates (1997). The Root Causes of High Risk Road Use. Towards a New

Research Agenda. (Unpublished paper).

Grey, E., Triggs, T., & Haworth, N. (1989). Driver aggression. The role of personality, social

characteristics, risk and motivation. Canberra, ACT: Federal Office of Road Safety. CR8l.

Johnson, K. (1997). Frustration drives road rage. National Safety Council. Traffic Safety.

Joint, M. (1997). Road rage. In AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety (ed), Aggressive driving:

Three studies. Washington DC.: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.

119

STAYSAFE 58

Keskinen, E. & Pasanen, A. (1990). Self destruction in motor vehicles accidents: the

proportion of suicides and negligent drivers in fatal motor vehicle accidents in 1974-75

and 1984-85 in Finland. Journal of Traffic Medicine, Vol 18. No 4.

Kuroda, N. & Pounder, D. (1994). Suicide on the roads, Journal of Traffic Medicine, Vol 23,

No 2.

Mizell, L. Jr.

(1997). Aggressive driving. In AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety

(ed).

Aggressive driving: Three studies. Washington DC.: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.

Nelson, W. (1994). Intentional acts of violence in motor vehicles: Suicide and Murder.

Accident Investigation Quarterly, Issue 2.

NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics (1996). New South Wales criminal courts statistics 1995.

NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics (1996). New South Wales recorded crime statistics 1995.

American Psychiatric Association (1985). Psychiatric aspects of traffic accidents. American

Journal of Psychiatry, 142(5).

Sivak, M. (1983). Society’s aggression level as a predictor of traffic fatality rate. Journal of

Safety Research, Vol. 14.

The Crime Research Centre, University of Western Australia (1997). Road rage: Driving

related violence in Western Australia. Report for the Royal Automobile Club of Western

Australia.

120

STAYSAFE 58

ROAD RAGE: A HOT ISSUE OR JUST

LUKEWARM?

S. Gray

NRMA

SOURCE: Gray, S. (1997). Road rage: A hot

issue or just lukewarm? Paper presented at the

Motor Vehicles Update seminar, 15 May 1997.

Sydney, NSW: Legal and Accounting

Management Seminars.

A small sample of newspaper articles for any period over the last two years would lead the

reader to believe that a new scourge has afflicted our society. It has been given the name

‘road rage’ and we are led to believe that it is a new phenomenon, probably imported from

the USA, and reaching epidemic proportions on our roads. It is characterised as the average

driver totally losing control over the frustrations of a clogged traffic environment and the

perceived poor driving skills and courtesy exhibited by other drivers.

While there is no doubt that examples of aggressive, intimidatory, menacing and abusive

driving do occur in the traffic environment, there is considerable doubt regarding the nature

and extent of this issue. We need to look to the available research data to establish a clear

picture of the problem before deciding on the best strategies to overcome it.

Defining the concept ‘Road rage’

The term ‘road rage’ has recently been used by the media to describe a range of behaviours

that have occurred on the roads. This range of behaviours has included relatively minor

instances such as use of the car horn and gestures, through to the more serious events

which have been more violent in nature. NRMA is not encouraging the use of the term ‘road

rage’ to describe these incidents, particularly those of the less serious kind.

Indeed, NRMA believes that the use of the term should not be encouraged. We have taken

this stance because the term does not convey the reality of the circumstances to which it has

commonly been linked. The term ‘road rage’ is commonly linked in the community and the

media to any negative or unpleasant driving experience (Crime Research Centre, 1997).

This includes incidents such as gesturing, flashing headlights, tail-gating, obscene language,

pushing into traffic queues and the like. Clearly, while such incidents contain the potential for

violence, it is very rare that they result in acts of violence.

Many of the more minor incidents such as use of the car horn, come more from driver

frustration than anything that comes close to a ‘rage’. The word ‘rage’ suggests a person out

of control and completely consumed by anger: indeed the dictionary meaning begins with the

term ‘violent anger’ (Australian Oxford Dictionary, 1993). The vast majority of incidents of

frustration in the driving environment do not result in violence and linking these two very

different behaviours under one umbrella only promotes the idea that the frustration that

121

STAYSAFE 58

many drivers feel could easily become more violent - it clearly does not. The terminology

itself can be misleading:

Part of the damage that labels such as

‘road rage’ may cause is that they blur the

boundaries between aggression and violence and allow violence in the context of driving to

be seen as spontaneous and justifiable aggression rather than as criminal behaviour. (Crime

Research Centre, 1997, p. 11)

Incidents of road related violence

Nevertheless, there are obviously examples of incidents where frustration and anger turns to

violence in relation to the roads and the traffic environment. The most recent research in this

area was conducted by the Crime Research Centre of the University of Western Australia.

The research, funded by the Royal Automobile Club of Western Australia, investigated

incidents of road related violence from police offence reports over the period 1991 to 1995 in

that state. They found 797 incidents of road related violence from over 7,000 police offence

reports from that period which related to assaults by strangers in car parks or streets. This

compares to an annual number of approximately 11,000 assaults reported to police. Viewed

from this perspective only approximately 1.4% of assaults reported to police in WA over the

period 1991-1995 were, what might be termed, genuine ‘road rage’ incidents. As the report

states:

Road violence reported to police increased slightly between 1991 and 1995, both as a

proportion of the population and as a proportion of ‘traffic volume in the Perth metropolitan

area. However road violence as a proportion of all street assaults by strangers has remained

relatively stable. (p. 3)

The researchers defined road related violence as ‘instances of physical violence and threats’

which occurred between strangers (Crime Research Centre, 1997, p. 9). The classification of

the involvement of strangers is important because it removes incidents where domestic or

other disputes spill over onto the road environment.

While the media has reported some events recently which have been labelled as ‘road rage’,

such research data suggest that this phenomenon is not widespread or prevalent. Rather,

the incidents which have occurred have merely been brought to public notice and, to some

extent, sensationalised. This is described by some researchers as amplification. This means

that activities tend to be redefined by the media to fit into a ‘new’ category they have

‘discovered’ (Crime Research Centre, 1997). For example, two drivers might have a minor

collision and stand on the road arguing about fault. Such activity, which is clearly not new,

may be redefined as ‘road rage to provide more interest as a media story.

One possible consequence of this amplification could be that through the reporting of the

incidents, similar behaviour by others could be encouraged. Fortunately this does not appear

to have occurred although a continuing focus may encourage some drivers to behave in this

way. A further consequence is an over-inflated perception in the community of the incidence

of real violence related to the road.

Contributing factors

An area which has not received much attention, is the cause of the incidents leading to

frustration or aggression experienced by some drivers. NRMA believes that there are three

122

STAYSAFE 58

components contributing to this: personality factors, events outside the driving environment,

and the traffic environment itself.

Research indicates that personality factors are a key to understanding the problem of road

related violence. Numerous studies have shown that the kinds of individuals likely to lose

their temper and initiate violence in other locations are the same kinds of (and sometimes

literally the same) individuals who are involved-in road related violence (see for example:

Novaco, 1991; Holzapfel, 1995; Crime Research Centre, 1997). One report states:

One of the most reliable predictors of roadway violence is the past violent history of the

offender. Violence is generally linked to individual attributes of impulsivity, low tolerance of

frustration and risk taking (Crime Research Centre, 1997, p. 23).

These psychological factors are then exacerbated by the social acceptance of incivility on

our roads:

Our society tolerates a degree of incivility on the roads as a relatively normal aspect of

driving in much the same way as it tolerates the occasional flare-up on the football field as

part and parcel of the game. The act of getting in the car seems to insulate the driver from

some of the normal restraints that guide social behaviour in public settings (Crime Research

Centre, 1997, p. 14).

Events outside the driving environment are also a contributing factor to road related

violence. The highly mobile and complex social setting in which we live means that there are

many stressors which can affect the way drivers behave. Pressure to be at certain places at

specific times, job-related stress and family demands mean that drivers are not always in a

calm and relaxed state when they start to drive. A minor occurrence in the driving

environment can be the trigger for a venting of the frustration from other aspects of life.

The congested nature or our traffic environment can also be a contributing factor. Increasing

traffic on our roads means that there are greater demands on the road network. There are

times when high traffic volumes means delays for drivers which may be difficult to tolerate.

Though these three factors contribute to driver behaviour, it is usually only the end result,

that is the frustrated or aggressive behaviour, which is reported. Even in the more violent

incidents reported in the press, other factors which may have played a part in the lead-up to

the event, are not explored or reported. This may be contributing to the perception by some

that these aggressive events are more prevalent now than they used to be.

Existing laws

In the case of the more violent or extreme incidents which may occur on the roads, NRMA

believes that it is not necessary to have additional laws which relate only to those acts which

occur in the road and traffic environment. The more serious incidents which have occurred,

have been adequately dealt with through the courts under existing law. By creating a

separate offence for incidents which occur in the road and traffic environment, the message

could be sent to the community that violent and aggressive acts on the roads are different to

other assaults. This could encourage the view that aggression and violence on the roads is

understandable and expected.

With respect to driver behaviour such as gesturing, abusiveness and so on, NRMA believes

that it would be extremely difficult to enforce any specific laws relating to these behaviours.

Therefore it may be more useful to adopt other approaches such as providing people with

123

STAYSAFE 58

information about how to share the road and avoid becoming stressed in the traffic

environment.

The role of the NRMA

NRMA has sought to address some of the concerns of its members through the publication

of a number of tips for drivers who are the victims of aggressive or intimidatory behaviour in

the road environment. (The Open Road, May/June 1996). In addition, NRMA has provided

advice and comment in the wider media which has sought to ‘play down’ interest. NRMA

has provided advice about how to avoid becoming frustrated in the traffic environment as

well as tips on what victims of aggression should do.

Conclusion

The term ‘road rage’ does not accurately describe the reality of road related violence where

the normal frustrations of the driving environment rarely lead to rage or violence. Road

related violence is not a new or widespread phenomenon, and the recent focus in the media

has largely been an amplification of the real situation.

Personality traits are a key to identifying perpetrators of road related violence. These

perpetrators are likely to be the same people who are involved in violence outside the road

environment. Existing laws related to assault are sufficient to control road related violence,

and in fact, to institute specific laws for ‘road rage’ may give it a legal and social prominence

it does not deserve. Far from being a hot issue, ‘road rage’ is barely lukewarm.

Bibliography

Crime Research Centre (1997). Road rage: Driving related violence in Western Australia.

Report prepared for The Royal Automobile Club of Western Australia. ISBN 0864225806

Holzapfel, H., (1995). Violence and the car. In: World Transport Policy and Practice, Vol, 1

No, 1; 1995 MCB University Press Limited.

Novaco, R., (1991). Aggression on roadways. In: Baenninger, R., (Ed.) Targets of Violence

and Aggression. Nth Holland: Elsevier.

124

STAYSAFE 58

THE ANATOMY OF ROAD RAGE—

AGGRESSIVE DRIVER BEHAVIOUR MAY

WELL BE CAUSED BY THE CAR ITSELF

G. Scrinis

Melbourne University

SOURCE: Scrinis, G. (1997). The anatomy of

road rage—Aggressive driver behaviour may

well be caused by the car itself. Sydney

Morning Herald, 30 July 1997, p.15.

The ‘road-rage’ legislation recently passed by the NSW Parliament is an attempt to address

the growing problem of violence and aggression on our roads. Yet road rage can be seen

as a more extreme form of the aggressive and abusive driver behaviour that has long been a

part of car culture.

The source of this driver behaviour can ultimately be traced to the way the car so thoroughly

transforms the way in which the driver engages with the world behind the wheel. The speed

and acceleration of the car creates a certain ‘compression’ of our experiences of time and

space. What might seem like a momentary hold-up for a pedestrian, cyclist or public-

transport traveller is encountered as an unbearably long delay to the car driver: a few

seconds seem like minutes, a few minutes seem like hours. This time-space compression

radically shortens and erodes the driver’s patience and the tolerance of others. Any

interruption to the journey leads to frustration.

The car is considered a time-saving device, yet it also intensifies the desire to save time

whereby drivers feel that every second or minute must be saved wherever possible. Drivers

may take relatively dangerous risks to cut just a few minutes off a journey, risks that are out

of proportion with the benefits to be gained, at least from the perspective of the non-driver.

The car thus creates rather than alleviates the experience of ‘time scarcity’.

Competitiveness on the road is also a result of the ‘road scarcity’ that the car creates. Given

the speed and space demands of the car, the road is transformed from a commonly shared

and abundant space into a scarce commodity. Behind the wheel, other road users are no

longer encountered as fellow travellers or as sources of social interaction, but instead as

obstacles to be avoided or as rivals competing for scarce road space. The car creates

scarcity and competitiveness in the same way as does a modern market economy.

Cars also encapsulate the drivers, physically separating them from any more direct

interaction with the people and environments they travel through. The direction of car

engineering is towards ever more conditioned cabins that further seal off drivers from any

more direct or unmediated experiences of their surroundings, and create an all-

encompassing technological environment within the car. The enclosed cabin, the speed of

car travel, and the demands put on drivers, make it difficult for them to develop a concern or

empathy with the people or places they flash past. The world is encountered as a series of

images that flow through the television-like windscreen.

125

STAYSAFE 58

In these ways, the car profoundly mediates and shapes the driver’s way of encountering the

world. Drivers come to confront each other not a vulnerable, mortal, all-too-human beings,

but as human-machine hybrids. Social relations between people begin to take the form of

instrumental relations between machines.

In his 1929 novel The Life of the Automobile, Russian author Ilya Ehrenburg had already

recognised this when he wrote”

“The automobile has come to show even the slowest minds that the earth is

truly round, that the heart is just a poetic relic, that a human being contains

two standard gauges: one indicates miles, the other minutes.”

Impatient, abusive and aggressive driver behaviour are the result of a combination of these

characteristics of the driving experience: time-space compression, road scarcity, the

encapsulation and anonymity of the driver, the physical excitement of being in control of a

mechanically powerful machine, and the general chaos and imminent danger of collision on

the road. People who are otherwise calm, patient and considerate in other spheres of

everyday life can become uncharacteristically aggressive, or at least severely tested. The

most aggressive behaviour, of course, results when these characteristics intersect with

particular forms of masculinity.

The more recent emergence of road rage probably has its sources in developments both on

and off the road. On the road, there is an increasing level of car-dependence and increasing

distances being travelled as the pace of contemporary lifestyles continues to accelerate, and

these factors intensify the characteristic pressures of driving. Off the road, there is

increasing incidence of anonymous violence, growing feelings of powerlessness, an erosion

of co-operative and shared experiences and an increasingly instrumental approach to other

people and life in general.

Road rage must to some extent be seen as an inevitable part of a car-dominant culture, and

has its sources within the driving experience itself. Rather than seeing the driver as being in

complete control of their vehicle, perhaps the car itself is to some extent in control of the

driver in the sense that it has already transformed the character of the person behind the

wheel.

126

STAYSAFE 58

AGGRESSIVE DRIVING/YOUNG DRIVERS:

ROAD SAFETY CAMPAIGN

LITERATURE REVIEW

Bay Street Communications

SOURCE: Bay Street Communications (1997).

Aggressive driving/Young drivers: Road safety

campaign literature review. Canberra, ACT:

NRMA-ACT Road Safety Trust.

Introduction

Over the last

25 years significant progress has been made in improving the safety

characteristics of the road environment and vehicles. Road safety practitioners have now

turned their attention to issues relating to driver behaviour and performance. The personal

attributes of drivers, along with their abilities and limitations have a significant effect on the

number and type of crashes that occur.

One personal attribute frequently cited as a contributing factor to road crashes is aggression.

According to the AAMI

1996 Crash Index the phenomenon known as ‘road rage’ is

increasingly evident with 18-24 year olds having a greater propensity to exhibit aggressive

‘road rage’ behaviour. It has been widely confirmed that young drivers in particular young

males are at greater risk than other drivers of being involved in a traffic crash.

The NRMA-ACT Road Safety Trust has identified these two areas (namely crash rates for

young drivers and increasingly aggressive driving behaviour) as factors to be addressed in

their final road safety campaign. As such this report reviews the literature currently available

on these topics in an effort to determine the most effective way of presenting these issues in

the context of the ACT road environment.

Driver Aggression

Theories on aggression

According to Grey et al (1989) a number of approaches have been developed to investigate

aggression, none of which can be considered complete in their explanations. The various

theories of aggression differ in the types of behaviour they include and in the aspects they

emphasise in terms of biological, motivational and social factors. As Brain (1981) notes, the

concept of aggression as applied to man:

phenomena

between biological, environmental and experiential factors.

127

STAYSAFE 58

Briefly, theories fall into the following areas:

Biological theorists hypothesise that humans motivation to deliberately engage in aggressive

activity is driven by innate forces of which the individual is not necessarily aware. This base

is modified by experience.

Social learning theorists argue that aggression is not due to instinct but is a learned

response through observation or imitation of socially relevant others

(Barchas,

1981).

Bandura (1983) proposes three primary sources of aggressive behaviour patterns within

Western society family members, the social system and the mass media. According to

Bandura (1983) there is mounting evidence that television affects behaviour by teaching

aggressive behaviour styles, altering restraints over aggressive behaviour, desensitising and

habitualising viewers and shaping their images of reality upon which they base much of their

behaviour.

The frustration-aggression hypothesis assumes that aggressive behaviour (defined as any

act whose goal response is injury to an organism) is the consequence of frustration (defined

as the condition which exists when a goal response suffers interference) (Dollard et al 1939).

Miller (1941) revised this theory to say that frustration produces an instigation to aggression

which may or may not be strong enough to evoke aggressive behaviour. Berkowitz (1981)

argued that it is not possible to say that one type of aggression or aggressive goal exists

differentiating between hostile and instrumental goals. Hostile aggression aims to injure the

object of attack whereas in instrumental aggression the primary goal is beyond causing

injury, for example domination or access to resources. It could be hypothesised that much of

the road related aggression corresponds to instrumental aggression (Grey, 1989).

According to Grey et al (1989) much of the literature on aggressive behaviour in driving

attempts to associate personality characteristics of individuals with the frequency or

occurrence of crashes or traffic violations. The extent to which differing personality types

influence the occurrence of aggressive behaviour is not really known. It is difficult to relate

aggression to personality as it is not possible to identify the aggressive individual on the

basis of any single cluster of so called aggressive personality traits (Feshbach, 1970 in Grey

1989).

Defining aggression in driving

In terms of the definition of aggression in driving it is possible to distinguish a range of

behaviours that may be described as aggressive (Grey et al 1989). The literature on

aggression in driving encompasses a broad range of research from investigations of

homicide and suicide by motor vehicle to relatively common aggressive acts such as risk

taking (for example speeding). Grey et al (1989) therefore used the concept of intent to

discriminate between driving acts where the intent was to cause harm and other driving acts

which reveal a willingness to chance dangerous consequences in order to fulfil driver

motives. The latter includes behaviour in which the driver may not intend to harm other road

users, or himself, and may not be aware of the risk involved. The behaviour appears to be

aggressive even though the intent is not readily definable. Aggression in driving is therefore

defined in two ways:

Strong definition of aggression in driving

Encompasses more extreme forms of aggression, including any behaviour with the intent to

cause physical and/or psychological harm or damage to oneself, other road users or

property. This includes physical or psychological assault, homicide or suicide.

128

STAYSAFE 58

Less extreme definition of aggression in driving

Involves less extreme behaviours and includes both actual aggressive behaviour and

aggressive-looking behaviour. The primary goal is not the injury of a victim but some

unknown motive beyond this, for example arriving sooner, thrills, release of emotional

tension, bad temper. Whilst the intent of the driver is not necessarily to cause harm the

behaviour reveals a willingness to risk hazardous outcomes.

It would appear unlikely that the majority of aggressive behaviour on the road is the result of

the ‘strong’ definition of aggressive driving. We will therefore focus on the less extreme

aggressive and aggressive-looking behaviour encompassed in the second definition.

According to Grey (1989) subjective experience indicates that members of the ‘normal’

driving population (as opposed to drivers with multiple crashes or traffic violations) exhibit

aggressive driving behaviour relatively frequently. They may also become aggressive when

faced with difficult driving situations such as slow moving traffic and as such aggressive-

looking behaviour (risk taking) needs to be considered. This starts with an investigation of

the motives of drivers for driving behaviour.

Motives of drivers

Naatanen and Summala (1976 in Grey et al 1989) argue that with regard to safe driving

behaviour the critical determinants of the road users behaviour are motivational in nature.

Grey (et al 1989) claims that much of the literature testifies to the position that drivers do not

always give their best in order to avoid crashes. The road users behaviour is seen as

reflecting a balance between personal motives and the subjective risk of being involved in a

crash. On the surface it maybe presumed that the principle motive for driving is to travel to a

given destination and arriving safely. However, Naatanen and Summala (1976) identify a

wide variety of motives, termed ‘extra motives’, road users might have, all of which may

result in expressions of aggressive behaviour and other risky driving acts amongst not only

‘high risk’ driver groups but also the general driving population. Naatanen and Summala

(1976 in Grey et al 1989) classify extra motives of drivers as follows:

Trip aims

This includes, for example, the desire to get from point A to point B quickly, competition

between drivers, timetable pressures, obtaining better position in traffic flow, all of which may

result in increased risk taking behaviour.

Behavioural models

Traffic behaviour is influenced by the driving norms of the individual’s peer group. Young

males may use their car as a means of asserting their manhood (Robinson 1972). Klein

(1972) notes that driving skill may represent the only means for achieving status with an

adolescent’s peers. Naatanen and Summala

(1976 in Grey et al

1989)

‘argue that

consciously or unconsciously people generally seem to regard driving speed and overtaking

ability as a measure of driving skill, as such individuals tend to be assertive and competitive

as a sign of their driving skill. These messages are reinforced in advertising where high

powered cars symbolise autonomy and power (Klein

1972). Speed, acceleration and

overtaking are common car advertising themes which serve to reinforce the extra motives of

drivers.

Hedonistic objectives

For example the excitement of driving, especially the thrill of driving at speed. Klein claims

that risk taking and aggressiveness are attributes valued by our society and the desire to

travel at speed (not just in cars, but in roller coasters, downhill skiing, etc) is instilled in us.

129

STAYSAFE 58

Emotions (within driving situation)

Aggressive emotions may be aroused by the driving situation itself. The frustrating nature of

driving whilst being continually constrained by other traffic can lead to anger as sited by

Parry’s (1968) anecdotal reports of driver responses such as hand gestures, swearing, light

flashing and facial expressions. Parry also encountered drivers who were driven to chasing

and confronting drivers who frustrated and irritated them. Ebbesen and Haney (1973)

reported increased risk taking as a result of frustration in the form of drivers accepting

shorter gaps in traffic flow when turning left at a T intersection. Whitlock (1971) suggests the

combative attitude that arises in difficult driving situations is a result of drivers becoming

aggressive in defence of their perceived territorial rights. The stronger the emotions

generated by the situation the greater the danger that emotions rather than the traffic

situation will make the driving decisions as drivers attempt to decrease their frustration as

soon as possible.

Emotions (external to driving situation)

The road user who drives when upset or angry may be doing so to blow off emotional steam

(Naatanen and Summala (1976 in Grey et al 1989)). Selzer et al (1968) reported that 20

percent of drivers involved in fatal crashes had been upset by some incident in the last six

hours of their lives. Holt (1982) and Selzer & Vinokur (1974) reported emotional crises in the

form of quarrels with significant others contributing to an increase in crash and violation

rates.

Risk taking

Risk taking can be defined as an increased willingness to take chances when driving

including behaviours engaged in purely for the enjoyment of driving dangerously. An English

study (Quimby & Watts, 1981) revealed drivers knowingly engaged in dangerous behaviour

(speeding, drink driving, non-seat belt wearing) although attitudes towards these improved

with age. Klein (1971) argues that American society places risk taking and aggressiveness

high on the list of socially desirable attributes with schools and mass media reinforcing

values which reflect competitiveness, initiative, control over one’s environment, masculinity,

challenge and excitement. Society rewards individual achievement rather than cooperative

effort. Hampson

(1984) contends that Australian society encourages risk taking and

competitiveness which is reflected in our driving behaviour. Klein

(1971) argues that

industrialised society minimises risk taking and concentrates decision making, and therefore

feelings of control, individual achievement and sense of power, into the hands of fewer

people. As a result drivers, and in particular young drivers, find little opportunity to manifest

these values in their work but can in their driving. Shaw and Sichel (1971) propose that well

integrated people will not change their behaviour when they sit behind the wheel of a car but

a poorly integrated person who finds driving an outlet for feelings of frustration, conflict and

aggression may well undergo a change in behaviour when driving. The issue of risk taking is

highly complex and subject to debate between researchers, particularly with regard to the

concept of awareness of risk.

Importantly, Naatanen and Summala (1976 in Grey et al 1989) argue that the concept of risk

taking and aggression are closely associated. They also claim that in general there is an

absence of subjective risk on the part of drivers and this combined with the extra motives are

among the major causes for the failure of many countermeasures designed to influence

driver attitudes.

Subjective risk of crash involvement

The concept of subjective risk is open to debate between researchers, primarily because it

cannot be measured directly. Grey (1989) identifies two approaches which have implications

for the prevention and control of aggression in driving.

130

STAYSAFE 58

The risk homeostasis theory argues that road users always operate at the maximum level of

risk that they are prepared to accept. This theory assumes the driver is aware and desires

the level of risk he/she is taking. The theory, also known as compensation theory, has the

basis in the concept of utility - the idea that the individual will always act to maximise the

expected gains for a given activity. Safety is treated as one of these utility gains along with

driving faster, getting to work faster and experiencing more excitement. In driving the

individual is expected to act to optimally adjust his behaviour to maximise his expected gain

in the face of a change in the driving environment (O’Neill, 1978). Aggressive driving is

therefore seen as a reflection of the driver’s desire to maximise his utilities. Wilde (1982)

argued that the level of risk that the individual driver is prepared to accept is the only factor

that will influence driver risk taking behaviour in the long term. The level of acceptable risk

will depend on the individual and is determined by cognitive and motivational states which in

turn are influenced by underlying variables including long term factors (for example cultural

values), trip specific variables (for example mood) and momentary fluctuations (for example

frustration with other drivers). This model predicts that individuals who drive aggressively do

so because they are operating at a level of risk they are prepared to accept. However, Grey

(et al 1989) states a number of the basic assumptions of risk homeostasis are yet to be

verified and the qualitative aspects of risk perception require further investigation.

In contrast, the absence of subjective risk view argues that in everyday driving situations

road users do not experience feelings of subjective risk but operate as though they were in a

totally safe environment and in this situation aggressive drivers may not be aware their

driving represents a high crash risk. Summala (1986) proposed a zero risk theory which

postulates that driving is a habitual activity based on largely automatic control of safety

margins. If the level of subjective risk is almost non existent the driver is able to satisfy extra

motives without the constraint of fear. Quimby and Watts (1981) observed that road users

who drive at inappropriate speeds resulting in greater risk taking appear to consider the risk

to be quite low. Research into risk perception shows that whilst people feel the risk of

crashing does exist it won’t happen to them because most drivers feel that they are more

skilful and less likely to be involved in crashes than the average driver (Svenson et al 1985).

Griep (1970) remarks that this lack of subjective risk may explain why fear arousing

campaigns encouraging careful driving have failed. People learn of risks through their own

everyday experiences and as such they rate their likelihood of car crash involvement as

quite low (Naatanen and Summala (1976) in Grey et al 1989). This is reinforced by the fact

that crashes are rare events when compared with the amount of time spent on the road.

According to the AAMI 1996 Crash Index drivers are statistically likely to have an accident

once every 6.57 years.

As learners, most drivers feel uncertain or fearful but with experience these feelings

disappear. Drivers gain a subjective feeling of control in the driving situation to a large extent

because they have feelings of control as the operators of the vehicle (Summala 1986).

Other factors affecting perception of risk by drivers include the low risk of apprehension for

traffic violations and the influence of other drivers seen displaying risky behaviour (Naatanen

and Summala (1976, cited in Grey et al 1989).

Other factors affecting aggressive driving behaviour

Whilst a great deal of research has been conducted into the interrelationship between

aggressive behaviour and other internal and external factors little has been conducted in

relation to road users. The following factors have been researched in relation to aggressive

driving behaviour.

131

STAYSAFE 58

Stress

A number of authors have reported that stressful events may be related to the occurrence of

traffic crashes. McMurray (1970) reported three in-depth studies of crashes that identified

emotional stress as a contributing factor. Stress may cause increased aggression or

distraction resulting in increased risk taking.

Alcohol

A number of authors suggest that alcohol modifies the expression of the personality and

releases aggressive personality traits. Yates, Meller and Troughton (1987) regard acts of

aggression to be a major behavioural complication of alcoholism. Donovan, Marlatt and

Salzburg

(1983) concluded that alcohol serves to increase covert hostility and overt

aggression which may be translated into driving related aggression, speeding, risk taking

and sensation seeking. Grey’s examination of the literature concluded that there was some

relationship between alcohol use and risk taking in driving although as Mitchell (1985)

argues individual differences in the response to alcohol are quite large and have not been

firmly established.

Other drugs

Increasing attention is being placed on the role of drugs other than alcohol in crash

causation. Brahams (1987) noted that sedative drugs may produce unexpected aggression.

Sharma (1976) commented that barbiturate intoxication is often accompanied by aggressive

behaviour and lack of emotional control. Moskowitz (1976) acknowledged that marijuana use

produces impairment in driving skills but found subjects less willing to take risks. Pliner (et al

1972) rated subjects under the influence of marijuana as being less aggressive, a view

supported by Seppala et al 1979 who observed reduced willingness to take risks.

Brain pathology

Research into the influence of brain pathology and crash causation is limited and anecdotal.

Noyes (1985) states that the crash risk of mentally ill patients is higher than in the general

population. According to Grey et al (1989) it is unlikely that brain diseases play a major role

in the occurrence of aggressive behaviour resulting in car accidents although it may be

implicated in a very small number.

Psychological aspects

Grey et al (1989) reviewed the literature on extreme aggression and violence in road

crashes. This form of aggression includes all behaviour where the intent is to cause physical

and or psychological harm to oneself (suicide) or other road users (homicide and other

malicious acts such as driving vehicles off the road). They concluded such drivers are not

typical of the majority of road users and are in fact quite rare.

Personality traits

A significant amount of research has evaluated the role of aggressive personality traits in

driving crashes as opposed to the motives for aggressive behaviour displayed in the normal’

driving population. The potential value of such research into personality and social

characteristics of problem drivers lies in establishing effective means of predicting crash

liability. Whilst it is possible to identify certain groups in the community who are at greater

risk there appears to be no personality test which has been found to predict individual crash

liability satisfactorily before the event. This area of research has been characterised by

inadequately designed and conducted studies placing the validity of much of the research

into question. Henderson (1971) maintains

that the study of the psychological characteristics of crash involved drivers is

not productive as these traits appear to change with time, age and situation

and do not aid in crash prevention. As such this review does not examine this

area in depth.

132

STAYSAFE 58

The extent of aggressive driving

‘Road rage’ is a relatively new concept in Australia, with the majority of information about the

issue coming from news reports of extreme aggressive driving behaviour, involving pursuit

and homicide, occurring in the United Kingdom, Europe and the United States of America.

This level of aggression has yet to be experienced in this country. However, according to the

AAMI 1986 Crash Index, the incidence of the phenomena known as

‘road rage’ is

increasingly evident. According to their survey of 602 motorists:

•

57 percent said that being on the roads was like being on a battlefield

•

47 percent often got mad with other motorists

•

66 percent said they felt anger when another driver cut them off

•

63 percent often came across drivers who got angry without real provocation

•

90 percent were of the opinion that there were a lot of idiots on the road

•

27 percent toot their horns to indicate other drivers’ errors

•

22 percent sometimes gesticulate at other motorists when they are angered by them

•

6 percent have pursued drivers who have done something stupid

•

5 percent have been angered sufficiently to tailgate another motorist whilst flashing

their lights

Whilst being referred to as ‘road rage’ it is suggested that the forms of aggression revealed

by the AAM I research actually fall under the definition of less extreme forms of driver

aggression. These figures tend to support the theory that aggressive behaviour is not

restricted to a small group of aggressive drivers but is undertaken, to varying degrees,

across the spectrum of the ‘normal’ driving population.

Unfortunately the AAMI Crash Study did not include research within the ACT road

environment, therefore this review recommends that some type of research, be it formal or

anecdotal, be undertaken to determine the extent and form of the aggressive driving problem

in the ACT.

Interestingly, according to the AAMI study, Brisbane had the most aggressive drivers,

followed in diminishing order by Hobart, Melbourne, Adelaide and Sydney This would

indicate that aggressive driving is affected to a large extent by the road environment drivers

are subject to, for example slow moving traffic may generate greater driver frustration which

manifests in greater risk taking and aggressive driving.

Further, the road environment will affect driver’s level of subjective risk. It is suggested that

the Canberra road environment would be perceived by locals as highly safe, potentially

lowering the level of subjective risk, however further research is required to confirm this

proposition. The ACT Bicycle Safety Study undertaken by Co-Communications/Purdon

Associates in 1994 made reference to a level of hostility by motorists towards cyclists.

Cyclists claim daily occurrences of aggressive behaviour including verbal abuse, heckling,

horn blowing and car dodging around them.

Summary of findings and conclusions aggressive driving

Results of existing research

This literature review reveals that considerable research has been conducted into the role of

aggression in driving, few firm conclusions can be drawn for a number of reasons, including:

133

STAYSAFE 58

conditions, vehicle safety, societal values and individual driver behaviours which to

some extent are continually evolving

•

‘road rage’ is a relatively new phenomena which has not been experienced in its

extreme form in Australia, thus there are no findings on its form and extent in this

country

Whilst few definitive conclusions can be drawn about aggressive driving behaviour, some

assumptions can be used as a guide in planning and implementing a road safety campaign

addressing this issue.

It is clear that the extent of aggressive driving behaviour is not confined

to a subgroup of traffic violators, rather these types of behaviour are

displayed extensively through the ‘normal’ driving population.

There is currently no way of predicting propensity for crash involvement

in individuals. Drivers at high risk exhibit a broad range of personal and

social characteristics, examined below.

Potential contributing factors to aggressive driving behaviour:

Extra motives

It cannot be assumed that the only motivation for driving is getting from point A to point B in

the safest possible way. Extra motives for driving, which may result in aggressive or

aggressive looking behaviour are addressed below. These extra motives are potentially the

major reason for the failure of countermeasures designed to influence driver attitudes.

quicker

speeding and overtaking ability as a measure of driving skill and as such drive in

ways which show this level of skill.

does exist, they believe it won’t happen to them because most drivers feel that

they are more skilful and less likely to be involved in crashes than the average

driver. People learn about risks through their own everyday experiences and as

such rate their likelihood of car crash involvement as quite low because crashes

are rare events when put in the context of the amount of time spent of the road.

car, on a roller coaster or in any adrenalin based sport (such as downhill skiing,

motorcar and motor bike racing) is a common trait well entrenched in society.

(within the driving situation)

- The actual driving situation can

potentially generate aggressive behaviour. Possibly the most common cause of

this anger is frustration generated by constraining traffic conditions (eg slow

moving traffic, lack of gaps) which may prompt drivers to make decisions based

on the need to reduce their frustration as soon as possible, rather than the most

safe driving option.

134

STAYSAFE 58

as a result of some external factor (eg emotional crises in the form of quarrels

with significant others) have a substantially increased crash risk rate. Stress can

manifest itself in causing increased aggression or distraction which results in

increased risk taking.

Alcohol

Distinct sub-groups of those at high crash risk include people who drive under the influence

of alcohol There is evidence, although not conclusive~, in some individuals alcohol can

modify behaviour in the form of generating covert hostility and overt aggression, resulting in

behaviour such as speeding, risk taking and sensation seeking.

Young drivers

Young drivers, particularly young male drivers, have been identified as a sub group with a

greater propensity to exhibit aggressive behaviour. This is covered in depth in the following

section of this review.

Personality traits

Personality factors which have been associated with traffic crashes include competitiveness,

poor driving attitudes, driving for emotional release, impulsiveness and risk taking. There is

evidence to suggest that a poorly integrated individual who uses driving as an outlet for such

feelings of frustration, conflict and aggression may well undergo a change in behaviour when

behind the wheel of a vehicle.

Society values

The effect of society values regarding such issues as risky behaviour, aggressive behaviour

and traffic violations cannot be ignored when considering the causes for aggression on the

road. Research indicates that American, English and Australian society all encourage risk

taking and competitiveness, rewarding individual achievement rather than cooperative effort.

Mass media support this through advertising which features speed, acceleration and

overtaking as desirable traits which in turn serve to reinforce aggressive driving and risk

taking. Industrialised society concentrates decision making and therefore feelings of control

into the hands of a minority. As a result the majority of the general population find little

opportunity to display control and power - driving provides an opportunity to meets these

needs.

Risk taking and subjective risk

Risk taking is believed to be closely linked with aggressive or aggressive-looking behaviour.

The road users behaviour is seen as reflecting a balance between personal motives and the

subjective risk of being involved in a crash.

Young Driver Crash Risk

Introduction

It is well documented that young drivers have a greater risk than other drivers of being

involved in a traffic crash. Whilst lack of experience is clearly a major cause of this high

crash risk, there are a number of other contributing factors which need to be considered in

the design and implementation of a public awareness campaign addressing this issue.

Young driver motivation must be considered, in an effort to determine how best to influence

this group of drivers.

135

STAYSAFE 58

Theoretical model

Macdonald (1994) as part of extensive research conducted by Monash University Accident

Research Centre, formulated a model to provide a common framework to allow the review of

literature on the subject of young driver crash risk.

According to the model crash risk is determined by the interacting effects of two broad

categories of factors:

Young driver motivation

Driver motivation in general has been discussed under the topic of aggression, the factors

below are motives specifically related to young drivers.

Cognitive development

Lewis (1985) conducting studies into adolescents’ decision-making processes found that

their awareness of possible future consequences of their decisions increased from 11% to

42% over the age range 12 to 18 years. Compared to older adolescents, younger ones have

more difficulty imagining circumstances which are outside of, or contradictory to, personal

experience.

Socio-development tasks of adolescence

Lewis (1985) also identified the socio-emotional ‘developmental tasks’ of adolescence as

being to achieve autonomy and identity. It was suggested that motives associated with these

processes may tend to encourage high risk-taking behaviour.

Different goals

Knapper (1985) noted the importance of recognising that young drivers are affected by many

goals, not simply that of avoiding crashes, in fact their psychological or interpersonal goals

may conflict with safety-related goals. Young drivers are more likely to initiate risky

manoeuvres because of youthfulness and sensation-seeking

(Zuckerman,

1979), and

autonomy development (Douvan, 1974). Jessor (1984) and Lewis (1985) view risky driving

by young people as an expression of their developmental behavioural health.

Personal vulnerability

Peck (1985) suggested that a sense of personal vulnerability, or lack of sense of self, may