The Intertrans Group: Controlling Road Rage
The Intertrans Group: Controlling Road Rage
The Intertrans Group: Controlling Road Rage
By
June 9, 1999
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
I. Introduction
II. Methodology
III. Results
A. Literature Search
1. Legislation
a. Recent Legislation
2. Implemented Programs at the Regional, State and Local Levels
3. Methods Used
a. Education
b. Enforcement
c. Self-help Methods
d. Penalties for Offenders
e. Call-in Cellular and Other Telephone Systems
f. Intelligent Transportation Systems and Photo Enforcement
g. The Internet
h. Driver Education
i. Other Countries
4. Literature Search on Characteristics of Road Rage Incidents
B. Results of the National Survey
C. Results of the Detailed Survey
D. Results of the Survey Characteristics of Road Rage Incidents
IV. Synthesis of Results
V.
VI. Bibliography
VII. Appendices
16
Executive Summary
This report discusses results of a literature review and pilot study on how to prevent
aggressive driving and road rage. The study Controlling Road Rage: A Literature
Review and Pilot Study defines road rage as an incident in which an angry or
impatient motorist or passenger intentionally injures or kills another motorist,
passenger, or pedestrian, or attempts or threatens to injure or kill another motorist,
passenger, or pedestrian. It must be emphasized that road rage and aggressive
driving are not synonymous. Road rage is uncontrolled anger that results in violence
or threatened violence on the road; it is criminal behavior. Aggressive driving does not
rise to the level of criminal behavior. Aggressive driving includes tailgating, abrupt lane
changes, and speeding, alone or in combination. These potentially dangerous
behaviors are traffic offenses, but are not criminal behavior.
This report discusses results of a literature review and three surveys. The literature
review identified recent legislation to combat aggressive driving and road rage. On the
state level, only Virginia and Arizona have enacted specific legislation for this purpose.
A national survey and a follow-up detailed survey identified three organizations with
highly rated road rage interventions that included rigorous evaluation components.
These are the New York City Police Department, the New Jersey State Police
Department, and the West Valley City Police Department. The New Jersey program
was the only one that responded to a request for more information. Indications are that
the New Jersey program may be a good model for other jurisdictions.
A supplemental survey on road rage characteristics asked U.S. law enforcement
personnel about actual road rage incidents. Most respondents say road rage is a
problem in their area. Although based on a small sample, there appears to be a
slightly higher incidence of road rage incidents during the Friday afternoon peak travel
times, during fair weather, under moderately congested conditions, and in urban areas.
Incidence does not appear to be influenced by proximity to holidays. However, alcohol
and/or drugs were found to be associated with one quarter of incidents.
Enforcement and education are the most commonly used interventions to prevent
aggressive driving and road rage. Legislation is another avenue, but so far the
enactment of statutes has been impeded by existing laws that address this issue and
by concerns about ambiguous wording. Results suggest that enforcement efforts
should be accompanied by public information campaigns. Cooperative programs were
found to be effective for distributing resources and creating invisible patrol boundaries.
Interagency liaisons also offer economies of scale to smaller jurisdictions that have
smaller advertising budgets. Intelligent transportation systems also show promise for
deterring aggressive driving and road rage, mainly through the use of intersection
cameras.
I. Introduction
3
Concern over aggressive driving and road rage has swept the United States in the final
decade of the 20th century. While still relatively infrequent, the number of incidents
appears to be growing. The apparent randomness of the victims and perpetrators
frightens the public, yet motorists who wish to avoid confrontations are ill informed
about the precursors leading to aggressive driving or how to defuse potentially
dangerous traffic situations. Likewise, little practical information exists on how
organizations can intervene to curb road rage.
Definitions of road rage vary and too often go unstated. In this study, road rage is
defined as an incident in which an angry or impatient motorist or passenger
intentionally injures or kills another motorist, passenger, or pedestrian, or attempts or
threatens to injure or kill another motorist, passenger or pedestrian. In this sense,
road rage incidents can be distinguished from other traffic incidents by their willful and
criminal nature. They are serious crimes that just happen to occur within the roadway
environment.
Law enforcement agencies, the transportation community, and other organizations
concerned with roadway safety have responded to the perceived road rage epidemic
in various ways. In March 1998, the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety awarded a
contract to the InterTrans Group to conduct a literature review and pilot study on
aggressive driving and road rage.
The literature search was aimed at identifying promising interventions. A survey was
faxed to law enforcement and transportation organizations in the fifty largest
metropolitan areas nationwide. A second, detailed survey was designed to elicit more
in-depth information from national survey respondents who indicated they had
implemented aggressive driving programs. To determine the conditions under which
road rage incidents are most likely to occur, a third supplemental survey on the
characteristics of road rage incidents was also faxed to recipients of the national
survey.
Promising interventions are identified based on the literature search and the first two
surveys. The results of the third survey and a portion of the second survey, on
characteristics of road rage incidents, were tabulated and a profile of typical road rage
conditions is presented. Specific recommendations are then developed for
organizations wishing to implement programs, and finally, suggestions for further
research are provided.
II.
Methodology
A. Literature Search
A literature search was conducted to identify strategies that have been implemented in
the United States and other countries to combat aggressive driving and road rage.
Sources include the Internet, proprietary databases such as Dow Jones
News/Retrieval, Pro-Quest, The New York Times @ OnDisc, Uncover web, TRIS, and
periodicals, public information brochures, books, videotapes, and newspapers. The
search was not intended to be comprehensive; rather its aim was to provide an
overview of interventions currently in use to combat aggressive driving.
B. National Survey
The first survey was designed to identify organizations that have implemented
programs to combat aggressive driving. The survey was faxed to law enforcement
organizations and to public works and traffic engineering departments. Between May
1st and 15th 1998, surveys were sent to organizations in 504 randomly selected
jurisdictions in the fifty largest metropolitan areas. A total of 139 surveys were returned
for a response rate of 28 percent. Responses to the survey were tabulated and
organizations that have implemented programs to curb road rage were identified.
C. Detailed Survey
A second, detailed survey was developed for respondents of the initial national survey
who indicated that their organizations had implemented programs to curb road rage.
The purpose of the survey was to identify interventions that are being evaluated and
appear to reduce aggressive driving incidents. An added part of the survey, Question
15 and its subparts, was designed to obtain information about actual road rage
incidents from law enforcement and traffic professionals.
The survey was faxed between July 22 and August 18, 1998, to the 37 respondents to
the first survey who reported that their organizations had taken active measures. A
total of 16 surveys were returned for a response rate of 43 percent. Three jurisdictions
that appeared to be monitoring road rage interventions with appropriate outcome
measures were selected. Through contact with the organizations, additional
information was solicited to more completely evaluate their programs.
D. Survey on Characteristics of Road Rage Incidents
A third survey entitled Characteristics of Road Rage Incidents was faxed to the 139
respondents of the first survey and later to 150 non-respondents to the first survey. In
total, 25 surveys were returned, reporting on a total of 57 incidents. This survey
consisted only of Question 15 from the detailed survey. This question asked about the
conditions under which actual road rage incidents occur. This survey was not included
in the original research design, but it was added to boost the number of cases. The
results of the survey (N=57) were combined with responses to Question 15 from the
detailed survey, resulting in 80 separate occurrences of road rage.
III. Results
A. Literature Review
1. Legislation
Legislation directed at controlling road rage has actually been introduced in 17 states
and many other bills are under development (5). Definitional problems and concerns
about conflicts with current traffic laws are barriers to passing aggressive driving
legislation. Many of these statutes are perceived as unenforceable due to ambiguous
wording that allows for too much interpretation by law enforcement officers
(35)(42)(12)(43)(37)(48). The Mid-America Research Institute conducted a series of
focus groups for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Group
participants included judges, prosecutors, public defenders, defense attorneys and
police; none of the groups believed that specific legislation was needed to address
road rage (30).
Proposed legislation targets aggressive driving and road rage in several ways,
including developing legal definitions and recommended penalties. Other interventions
include enhanced enforcement, expanded driver education programs, and
authorization of studies to examine modifications to existing laws, rules, or policies.
Studies of the effectiveness of existing measures and, in one state, leveraging
insurance premiums to require aggressive driver education are additional interventions.
a. Recent Legislation
In 1998, nine states introduced 26 aggressive driving bills. To date, only two of these
have been enacted: Arizonas aggressive driving bill and the Virginia Drivers
Education Requirement (12)(19).
All nine of the states that introduced legislation in 1998 defined aggressive driving as a
separate charge from other driving offenses. The majority of the bills that focus on
increased penalties distinguish violent driving acts, or road rage, from aggressive
driving by charge (felony and misdemeanor, respectively), and class, so road rage
incidents are most often considered to be degrees of aggressive driving. Illinois
HB2509, however, defines separate offenses for road rage and aggravated road rage.
Six states introduced legislation that provided specific penalties for aggressive driving.
Bills that focused on educational efforts include either mandatory re-education for
convicted offenders (3 states) or the inclusion of aggressive driving in driver education
courses (3 states). Many states (such as Arizonas HB2311) have included penalties
and mandatory education within the same bill.
In addition to increased penalties and expanded driver education programs, some of
the proposed legislation encourages developing new aggressive driving interventions
and evaluating existing measures (3 states). Nebraskas LR373 calls for a study of
options for penalties and enforcement, while another bill (LR391) proposes to study
ways in which laws, rules and regulations can be modified to address aggressive
7
driving or road rage. New Yorks law (AB9173) proposes a public education campaign
and another bill (AB10037) provides for an evaluation of the effects of driver education
on traffic violations and road rage.
The most frequently proposed penalties for aggressive driving are fines, mandatory reeducation, suspension or revocation of drivers licenses, and points deducted for
offenses.
The salient features of the bills introduced in 1998 are summarized in Table 1. The
information is current as of December 1998.
Table 1. Legislation Introduced in 1998
State
Arizona
Bill(s)
HB2311
Connecticut
HB5267
HB5675
Hawaii
SB2054
Illinois
HB2509
Description (s)
The bill adds a section to the existing code and defines
aggressive driving as an offense. It classifies a violation as a
class 1 misdemeanor. In addition to fines and/or other
penalties, it requires that offenders attend driver training and
education and allows for a license suspension of 30 days. A
second offense within 24 months results in a class I
misdemeanor charge and a one-year license revocation, in
addition to other penalties. Approved May 26, 1998
(19)(40)(12).
The bill created a penalty for, and defined, aggressive driving.
The penalty was not to exceed $250 and a 30-day license
suspension. This bill died in the Judiciary Committee (19).
The bill allows the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles to require a
driver with two or more moving violations in one year to attend
an aggressive driving class. It required class attendance for
reckless driving and failure to stop when directed by a police
officer. This bill died in the Judiciary Committee (19).
The bill creates and defines a separate offense for aggressive
driving punishable by not less than a $200 fine or more than
$2,500 and incarceration for not less than one month or more
than one year. It establishes a mandatory minimum jail
sentence, where applicable, and a point system applied to
drivers licenses. In Judiciary Committee (19).
The bill creates and defines separate offenses for road rage
and aggravated road rage. This bill passed the House on March
27, 1998 and is pending in the Senate (19)(42)(6)(16)(43).
Bill(s)
HB292
Description(s)
The bill creates and defines the offense of aggressive driving.
The bill is in the Commerce and Government Matters
Committee (19).
HB294
HB989
Nebraska
LB1188
LR 373
LR 391
New York
AB8817/SB5959
AB9713
AB10037
SB6956/AB11118
SB 7328
SB 7451/AB10968
Washington
Bill(s)
HB895
Description(s)
The bill creates and defines a separate offense for aggressive
driving and establishes penalties. Carried over to next session
(19).
HB1309/SB546
HB896
HJR169
SB6708
California
Program Description
This state program is the longest running in the U.S. and relies on both
enforcement and a media campaign. Several aggressive driving patrols
are scheduled each week and there is zero tolerance for the aggressive
driver (63)(15). Arizona is one of only two states that has specific
aggressive driver legislation in place.
California initiated the long-running media campaign known as Smooth
Operator- a name also adopted by the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan
Area. Enforcement activity was also expanded, including programs for
red-light running (63)(4). At the municipal level, a number of cities have
adopted San Franciscos program, known as STOP, which impounds
cars of unlicensed drivers (26).
10
Table 2. Regional, State and Local Programs in the U.S. and Canada (continued)
State
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Illinois
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Missouri
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Program Description
Colorados program began in late 1997 and features an extensive
media program as well as enhanced enforcement. Known as ADAPT
(Aggressive Drivers are Public Threats), the program relies on
unmarked cars, motorcycles, and aircraft (63)(49).
The program, which began in 1997, uses unmarked cars in conjunction
with marked patrol cars. A 911 system is available for cellular phone
callers to report aggressive drivers (63)(37).
Delawares program, known as Take It Easy, started in 1997 and
features unmarked and nontraditional vehicles in conjunction with
marked patrol cars. A media campaign with public service
announcements is also being conducted (63).
The St. Petersburg Police Department program, referred to as Wheres
Jockers? uses a variety of non-traditional vehicles and a plain-clothes
officer to record violations with a radar unit and to relay information to
patrol vehicles in the area (63).
The Illinois program, started in 1997, is a decentralized effort that relies
on individual districts using a variety of tactics. These can include
enforcement teams, catch cars, targeted patrols, air operations, covert
operations and speed enforcement (63). Notes are being added to
tickets to indicate aggravated behavior (49).
Maryland is one of three participants (the others are Virginia and
Washington, D.C.) in the Smooth Operator program conducted in the
Washington metropolitan area. The Maryland state police program,
known as ADVANCE (Aggressive Driver Video and Non-Contact
Enforcement), started in 1997 and uses digital video cameras and
lasers to record violations on the National Capital Beltway. Added
features include a televised public information campaign and letters and
photos mailed to aggressive driving offenders (59)(63)(49).
This program, started in 1997, is known as the 3D Program (for Drunk,
Drugged and Dangerous). It includes a special unit that uses videoequipped, unmarked cars (63).
Michigans effort consists of a media campaign combined with
enhanced enforcement efforts (including the use of unmarked cars) in
two existing programs: Operation C.A.R.E. and Campaign Safe & Sober
(63)(33).
The Missouri program targets typical problem areas and relies on
cooperation between the State Highway Safety Office for media efforts,
and police agencies throughout the state for enforcement. The Highway
patrol uses aircraft, unmarked patrol cars and non-conventional
vehicles to spot aggressive drivers. The state is adopting a zero
tolerance policy and enforcement officers are placing notes on tickets to
indicate aggressive driving behavior (63)(55).
New Jersey utilizes semi-marked patrol cars as well as unconventional
vehicles in a multi-agency enforcement program. The program includes
toll free and cellular telephone numbers (63)(9)(28).
The City of Albuquerque program is known as Safe Streets, and uses
intensive enforcement to focus on violent offenders and areas with high
numbers of violent felonies (63).
Begun in July 1998, the program features enforcement and education
components and has been expanded to local law enforcement
jurisdictions. Efforts rely on non-conventional vehicles and unmarked
cars, some with video cameras (63)(21)(22)(50).
11
Table 2. Regional, State and Local Programs in the U.S. and Canada (continued)
State
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Washington
District of Columbia
British Columbia
Ontario
Program Description
Started on July 4, 1997, the Ohio Highway Patrol statewide program is
known as TRIAD (Targeting Reckless & Intimidating Aggressive
Drivers). The program uses thirteen aircraft along with ground units
from the Highway Patrol and other local organizations (63)(60).
The Pennsylvania State Police Program is known as Ticket the
Aggressive Driver, and uses unmarked cars, aircraft and DOT vehicles
in conjunction with some plain-clothes officers (63). Operation
Centipede establishes police speed zones (46).
Rhode Island State Police began their program in 1997. It features a
media campaign and unmarked cars dedicated to an aggressive driving
patrol (63).
Started in 1997 by the Greer Police Department, the program is known
as Targeting the Aggressive Driver. It features a thorough education
component to promote community awareness and an enforcement
component (63).
Begun in 1997 by the cities of Arlington and Fort Worth, efforts include
increased attention to aggressive drivers by patrol officers and teams of
marked patrol cars and motorcycles. A motorist call-in program has also
been implemented, along with follow up letters and investigations, when
warranted (63).
The Utah Highway Patrol began its aggressive driver program in Salt
Lake City, in response to congestion resulting from freeway
construction. The program uses unmarked cars and non-conventional
vehicles in addition to a training program (63).
The Commonwealth is a participant in the regional Smooth Operator
program. Coordinated by the Fairfax County Police Department, the
effort includes Maryland and the District of Columbia in a multijurisdictional effort that utilizes coordinated enforcement waves in a
fifteen-agency effort. A special cellular phone number has been
provided for direct reporting to law enforcement organizations (63)(65).
Washington State has initiated a stepped-up law enforcement program
and Aggressive Driver Apprehension Team that uses motorcycles and
unmarked vehicles to apprehend aggressive drivers. The state has
begun compiling road rage statistics (63)(41).
The District is a participating agency in the Smooth Operator effort
along with Maryland and Virginia (63).
Begun as a speed enforcement program in 1995, this effort combines
enforcement and public information to target aggressive drivers in
British Columbia. It uses lasers and radar. Enforcement schedules are
posted on the Ministry of Attorney General Internet site (44).
The Peel Regional Police Department began their efforts in June 1996,
which includes a media campaign and intensive enforcement effort.
They have also installed a data collection system to monitor aggressive
driving. The Provincial Police conduct a separate program in Torontoarea highways (63). This program includes roadside counseling and the
use of on-the-spot surveys (24).
12
14
15
g. The Internet
The World Wide Web contains abundant resources for those wishing to increase their
awareness about their own driving behavior, as well as those wishing to publicize
instances of aggressive driving and road rage that they have encountered. Resources
include Report it Web sites, driver improvement pages and self-assessment quizzes.
The Iowa Department of Transportations Internet Web site, for example, includes an
informational section on road rage that provides a list of common roadway irritants as
well as tips for drivers (54). One Canada jurisdiction, the Township of King, has
provided a form for citizens to file complaints (51).
The Internet also provides an excellent means of distributing bibliographic and
reference lists. Examples of reference lists dedicated to the topics of aggressive driving
and road rage are provided by the Center for the Advanced Study of Public Safety and
Injury Prevention at the University of Albany and by the Washington State Library
(2)(52).
h. Driver Education
Driver education may be required for all potential licensees, or for the rehabilitation of
traffic offenders. School or defensive driving programs may be more specifically
focused to include segments on aggressive driving. Many of these programs are
voluntary. New Yorks Point and Reduction Program, for example, offers New York
drivers a 10 percent annual auto insurance reduction for attending defensive driving
class (25).
Virginia is the only state that has enacted specific legislation to address aggressive
driving through driver education. During a House Subcommittee hearing on Surface
Transportation in July 1997, it was stated that a 1994 Massachusetts study of the
effectiveness of the National Safety Councils Course Attitudinal Dynamics of Driving
was very effective. The evaluation of the course for drivers facing license suspensions
in Massachusetts, Mississippi, and New Hampshire indicated a 70 percent decrease in
crashes and violations among those drivers in the following year.
i. Other Countries
Countries besides the U.S. and Canada are also addressing road rage, including
England, Australia, Ireland, Japan, Scotland, and New Zealand. Approaches to the
problem vary, reflecting the different cultural norms of the implementing countries.
For example, Japans Ichihara Prison was founded to punish dangerously irresponsible
drivers, such as those guilty of vehicular homicide, drunk driving, fleeing the scene of
an accident and other crimes. Strict by western standards, it boasts a recidivism rate of
only 7% (13). In Australia, Police Minister Russell Cooper has drafted legislation that
would allow for up to two years jail term for road rage perpetrators and Victorian
magistrates are seeking the power to suspend licenses and require driver re-education
for drivers convicted of road rage offenses (57)(29). Most countries, however, are still
in the process of evaluating the extent of the problem. New Zealands Transport
16
Minister Jenny Shipley has called for both community action and media efforts to
combat road rage (56). In Great Britain, efforts have thus far concentrated on collecting
information on the frequency of violent roadway incidents (8)(7)(31).
4. Literature Search on Characteristics of Road Rage Incidents
The literature search on the precursors to road rage yielded little solid information.
Ellison et al, cite studies that correlate aggressive driving behavior with ambient
temperature (Kenrick & McFarlane), social class (Deaux, 1971) and the presence of
aggressive stimuli (Turner, Layton & Simons, 1975). Ellisons own study relates
aggressive behavior to driver anonymity (14). There is abundant anecdotal evidence
relating the frequency of aggressive acts to levels of congestion: however, empirical
evidence to support this assumption was not discovered in the literature.
100
80
60
40
20
0
City
Police
County
Sheriff
State
Police
DPS
State
Highway
Patrol
Metropolitan
Planning
Organization
State
DOT
No
14%
Yes definitely
39%
Neutral/ don't
know
32%
Yes
15%
Figure 2 shows that 39 percent of survey respondents indicated that road rage is
definitely a problem in their area and another 15 percent believe that it is a problem.
Nearly one-third (32%) did not know if road rage is a problem, or were neutral as to its
status, and 14 percent do not believe that it is a problem in their area.
Figure 3. Has your organization implemented any initiatives over the past 5 years to curb road
rage?
Percentage of Respondents
71%%
29%
Yes
No
Only 29 percent of the respondents to this question indicated that their organizations
have implemented any initiatives to curb road rage in the recent past.
18
Figure 4. Which methods have been implemented/organized by your organization over the past 5
years to curb road rage?
O ther
15%
D r iver training
11%
I n c r e a s e d u s e o f u n m a rked police
v e h ic le s
15%
22%
23%
Of the 29 percent of respondents who indicated that their organization had undertaken
initiatives to combat road rage, the highest percentage, or 23 percent, indicated that
their organization had increased their use of regular police vehicles and 15 percent
indicated the use of unmarked police vehicles (see Figure 4). Public Service
Announcements were reported by 22 percent of respondents, followed by driver
training at 11 percent. Other methods were reported by 15 percent of respondents.
Many of these methods were used in combination.
Figure 5. Has your organization conducted efforts to monitor the effectiveness of these
initiatives/methods?
Percentage of Respondents
87%
13%
Yes
No
19
Rating out of 10
7.4
7.0
6.0
Increased
use of
unmarked
police
vehicles
N=11
Increased
use of regular
police vehicles
N=28
Driver
training
N=5
5.7
5.2
Respondents were asked to rate methods on a scale of one to 10. Ratings for each
method were then averaged to give each method a score (Figure 6). Techniques that
received less than three ratings are not shown. Respondents to this question rated the
increased use of unmarked police vehicles the highest, at 7.4, followed closely by the
increased use of regular police vehicles rated 7.0. Driver training ranked third at 6.0
and the provision of a hotline was rated at 5.7. The lowest rating was given to public
service announcements/use of media at 5.2.
Number
40
23
13
7
2
3
2
1 (Virginia)
3
Percent
56
32
18
9
3
4
3
1
4
20
Scale
Regional
Regional
State
22
Number of
Responses
4
4
3
County
City/Municipal
Borough
Local
Specific Location
3
4
1
2
1
7. Please indicate all the resources that were used to plan and apply this technique.
8. Please rate the effectiveness of the technique to reduce road rage.
9. Please indicate what your rating is based on.
The subparts of Question 7 were intended to determine if some measure of costeffectiveness could be gleaned from survey responses as they were compared to the
respondents assessment of program effectiveness (Question 8). Question 9 is
especially important in determining effectiveness because increases in the number of
citations or violations reported are not considered evidence of effectiveness in
preventing aggressive driver behavior.
Responses to Question 7 varied widely, from the addition of an extra person dedicated
to a task to the addition of thousands of man-hours, pieces of equipment, and dollars.
Most efforts were reportedly modest in size, ranging from 1 to 10 man-hours.
However, because only three respondents indicated units of time, rate comparisons
are necessarily difficult. The complete breakdown of responses is included in Appendix
C. Responses to Question 8 are shown in Table 5.
Table 5. Program Effectiveness Rating
Effectiveness Rating
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
N/A
Number of
Respondents
0
0
1
2
9
2
1
8
1
1
5
The respondent who rated his operation a 10 was from the New Jersey State Police,
where cost data revealed the operation of 15 unmarked vehicles at $1750/vehicle. The
rating was based on enforcement data. Similarly, the effectiveness rating of 9 came
from the Connecticut State Police and related to the use of 10 unmarked vehicles as a
cost-effective technique to reduce crashes. The rating was based on experience only.
23
Eight programs were given effectiveness ratings of 8. All of these programs report
data collection on moving violations. Only two, the New Jersey State Police and the
Connecticut State Police, report data collection on collisions and accident reduction,
respectively, as indicated in their responses to Question 9. Only the respondent from
the New Jersey State Police based his rating on a reduction in the number of fatalities
and collisions.
10. Are you currently, or did you in the past, collect before-and-after data to monitor the
effectiveness of this technique?
11. What kind of data are you collecting?
12. Over which time period were the before-and-after data collected?
These questions were intended to get at the duration and rigor of program monitoring.
To evaluate program effectiveness, respondents needed to collect data prior to
implementation. The data should reflect a meaningful measure of program success
and collection should be continued after program implementation.
Of the respondents to these questions, four organizations report collecting data for the
before condition and have continued to monitor their programs. Of these four, three
organizations rated their programs 7 or higher in effectiveness: the New York City
Police Department, the New Jersey State Police Department, and the West Valley City
Police Department.
13. In your opinion, how have the following factors changed since you began collecting
data?
This question was intended to identify variables that could be used to evaluate
programs. All respondent answers are included in Appendix C. The table below
summarizes the three organizations that rated their programs effective, collected
before-and-after data, and used a measure that has face validity in evaluating program
effectiveness.
Table 6. External Variables for the New York City Police Department, New Jersey State Police and
West Valley City (Utah) Police Department
Agency
13a.
Media
Press
ure
13b.
Level of
Congestion
13c.
Traffic
Volumes
13d.
Accidents
13e.
Speeding
Citations
13f.
Reckless
Driving
Citations
13g.
Political
Pressure
13h.
Legislation
Directed at
Road Rage
New York
City Police
Department
New Jersey
State Police
Same
Increase
Somewhat
Same
Same
Same
Same
None
None
Same
Same
Same
Decrease
Same
Decrease
Same
West Valley
City Police
Department
Same
Increase
Sig.
Increase
Sig.
Increase
Sig.
Increase
Somewhat
Increase
Sig.
Increase
Somewhat
Increase
Same
interpretation of data for these agencies. For instance, indications are that West Valley
City may have experienced unusual population and economic growth, or land
development conditions that could seriously affect results.
14. In your opinion, what do you consider to be the most effective technique to curb
road rage? Reasons?
All answers to this question are included in Appendix C. The primary emphasis was
placed on enhanced enforcement; however, many respondents also considered public
awareness and education. Of particular interest are the responses by the New York
City Police Department and the New Jersey State Police. The New York City Police
Departments program focuses on prevention of incidents. In describing its
cooperative effort, the New Jersey State Police provide the following reason for
considering their program to be effective:
This method provided maximum saturation of an area without impacting any
single agency in a negative manner. It also allowed many smaller agencies the
opportunity to participate in a program that could not be initiated at their level.
The researchers conducted follow-up telephone calls to solicit information from the
three selected organizations. Only one of these responded with supplemental
information: the New Jersey State Police.
New Jersey State Police: 1997 Aggressive Driver/Aggressive Enforcement Program
New Jerseys program began in April of 1997, with the goal of reducing fatal and
serious motor vehicle accidents caused by aggressive drivers. An aggressive driver is
defined as anyone who operates a motor vehicle in an offensive, hostile, or belligerent
manner, thereby creating an unsafe environment for the remainder of the motoring
public. The following violations of New Jerseys traffic regulations are classified as
aggressive driving: speeding; following too close; unsafe lane changes; driving while
intoxicated; reckless; careless or inattentive driving; disregard of traffic signs and
signals; improper passing; and driving while suspended.
The program targets offenders through the use of both unmarked and marked patrol
cars. In addition, troopers are assigned to units that operate stationary and mobile
radar to enforce speed limits, and state and municipal police have joined forces to
conduct roving drunk driving patrols and establish sobriety checkpoints to detect drunk
drivers. The effort is publicized through a public awareness and outreach effort that has
produced public information, brochures, and bumper stickers, and includes #77
cellular and 1-888-SAF-ROAD hotline numbers. It is an cooperative effort, involving
numerous enforcement agencies at the state, county, and municipal levels.
The Aggressive Driver/Aggressive Enforcement Report issued by the New Jersey
State Police, with statistics compiled by the New Jersey State Police Traffic Bureau
and the Division of Highway Traffic Safety, indicate an 18% decrease in highway
fatalities in the six-county area where aggressive driver patrols were concentrated. A
breakdown of incidents by county is provided in Appendix D. The monitored period
25
extended from April 1, 1997 (the program start-up date) through December 31, 1997,
and the number of fatalities was compared with the same time period in 1996 to arrive
at the 18 percent figure. Statistics for 1998 are not available yet.
26
Total
40
80
Detailed
Survey
1
Characteristics
Percent
of Total
6.5
12AM5
4
2AM
2AM1
0
1
1.3
4AM
4AM1
1
0
1.3
6AM
6AM8
5
3
10.5
8AM
8AM4
1
3
5.3
10AM
10AM2
0
2
2.6
12PM
12PM4
1
3
5.3
2PM
2PM12
4
8
15.8
4PM
4PM19
6
13
25.0
6PM
6PM9
2
7
11.8
8PM
8PM6
0
6
7.9
10PM
10PM5
1
4
6.6
12AM
Totals
76
22
54
99.9
There were three non-responses and one respondent answered that he had witnessed no incidents at
any time. These four answers were not included in the computations. Percent total does not equal 100
due to rounding.
27
Percentage of Incidents
80
40
0
AM
12-2
Time of day
2-4
4-6
6-8
8-10
10-12
12-2
2-4
PM
4-6
6-8
8-10
10-12
Weather
The majority of road rage incidents reported in these surveys, 68.3 percent, occurred
during sunny weather. Another 20.1 percent of incidents occurred on overcast days.
Inclement weather does not appear to contribute to road rage; it may actually decrease
it by keeping motorists more preoccupied with roadway conditions and lowering driver
expectations. Of the 63 incidents (17 were either unknown or did not report the
conditions), none were reported to have occurred during rainy or snowy weather, and
only one was reported to have occurred under icy conditions. Incidents reported at
night constituted 9.5 percent.
Table 8. Weather Conditions
Total Number of Respondents: 40
Total Number of Incidents:
80
Weather
Sunny
Overcast
Rainy
Icy
Snowy
Dark/Night
N/A
Unknown
Total
Total
43
13
0
1
0
6
8
9
80
Detailed Survey
16
3
0
0
0
1
6
0
26
28
Characteristics
27
10
0
1
0
5
2
9
54
Percent of Total
68.3
20.1
0.0
1.6
0.0
9.5
--99.5
One respondent answered that he had not witnessed an incident under any conditions. This
answer was included in the N/A category, which was excluded from tabulations. Although
Dark/Night was not included as an answer option, these were volunteered by respondents and
have been categorized separately. Percent total does not equal 100 percent due to rounding.
Season
The highest percentage of road rage incidents, 37.8 percent, was reported to have
occurred during the summer. The lowest percentage was reported for the winter
months at 10.8 percent. Spring and fall occurrences were observed to be 23.0 percent
and 28.4 percent, respectively.
Table 9. Season
Total Number of Respondents: 40
Total Number of Incidents:
80
Season
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
N/A
Total
Total
17
28
21
8
6
80
Detailed Survey
9
6
4
1
6
26
Characteristics
8
22
17
7
0
54
Percent of Total
23.0
37.8
28.4
10.8
-100.0
The six N/A values were not included in the Percent of Total column.
Holidays
The occurrence of a holiday does not appear to influence the frequency of road rage
incidents. Only 12.5 percent of reported incidents occurred within four days of a
holiday.
Table 10. Proximity to Holidays
Respondents:
Incidents:
Within Four Days
of a Holiday?
Yes
No
N/A
Total
40
80
Total
Detailed Survey
Characteristics
8
56
16
80
3
16
7
26
5
40
9
54
The sixteen N/A values were not included in the Percent of Total column.
29
Percent
of Total
12.5
87.5
--100.0
Total
5
11
12
11
18
7
5
9
2
80
Detailed Survey
1
3
7
3
4
1
0
7
0
26
Characteristics
4
8
5
8
14
6
5
2
2
54
Percent of Total
7.3
15.9
17.4
15.9
26.1
10.1
7.3
--100.0
Not available and unknown responses were omitted from the Percent of Total column.
Traffic Conditions
The highest percentage of road rage incidents reported on the surveys, 33.3 percent,
occurred under moderately congested conditions. This figure was followed by 26.4
percent of incidents that occurred under free-flowing conditions, and 22.2 percent
occuring under conditions of heavy congestion. The fewest incidents, 18.1 percent,
occurred under lightly congested conditions.
Table 12. Traffic Conditions
Total Number of Respondents: 40
Total Number of Incidents:
80
Traffic Conditions
Free-flowing
Lightly Congested
Moderately Congested
Heavily Congested
N/A
Unknown
Total
Total
19
13
24
16
7
1
80
Detailed Survey
1
3
6
11
4
1
26
Characteristics
18
10
18
5
3
0
54
Percent of Total
26.4
18.1
33.3
22.2
--100.0
Not available and unknown responses were omitted from the Percent of Total column.
30
Total
Detailed Survey
Characteristics
Percent of Total
12
35
17
16
80
4
11
6
5
26
8
24
11
11
54
25.5
74.5
--100.0
Not available and unknown responses were omitted from the Percent of Total column.
Total
16
18
14
13
6
9
5
81
Detailed
Survey
3
8
3
7
0
0
5
55
Characteristics
13
10
11
6
6
9
0
26
Percent
of Total
21.1
23.7
18.4
17.1
7.9
11.8
-100.0
The total number of incidents shown is higher than reported because one was reported to have involved
two types of roadway. Responses in the N/A category were not included in the percentages.
31
Local efforts are less likely to feature extensive public information and education
components in their programs. This is probably due to both the high cost of publicizing
efforts and unfamiliarity with the public information arena. Coordinating resources
between smaller jurisdictions may offer a public information economy of scale that also
focuses attention on changing driver behavior.
For people truly interested in improving their driving behavior, educational and self-help
methods are becoming increasingly available. Many of these materials focus on the
self-defense aspect of roadway violence and provide valuable information on how to
avoid such encounters. Other materials educate drivers on how their own behavior
may contribute to confrontations. Hotlines may provide an alternative avenue for
venting driver frustration, even where complaints from citizens cannot form the basis
for issuing citations. It is difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of these efforts in
isolation because the motorists most likely to access them are probably also the most
motivated to improve their driving. Empirical data on effectiveness of these approaches
is still lacking.
Changes in the roadway environment are also being considered to combat road rage.
The most promising appears to be the use of intelligent transportation systems and
photo enforcement. Their success lies in their ability to detect offenders without the
physical presence of an enforcement officer and the perception by motorists that
officers need not be present or visible to enforce roadway laws. They are likely to be
effective in discouraging violent aggressive driving, as well, because offenders may
feel that their chances of being detected are increased and the use of this technology
allows for a higher level of monitoring without substantially increasing the number of
officers required.
The literature search on the characteristics of road rage incidents yielded little in the
way of documented studies. This may be due to the relative low incidence of road rage
or to the fact that road rage is a relatively new phenomenon. Still, the potentially
disastrous consequences of aggressive driving and road rage would seem to require
greater expenditures of public funds on research, education, and enforcement. This is
especially true given the number of respondents to the national survey who indicated
that road rage is perceived to be a problem in their areas.
Survey results indicate that road rage is most likely to occur Friday afternoon, in peak
travel times, and in fair weather. The surprisingly low number of incidents recorded
during rainy, snowy and icy weather may reflect increased attention to roadway
conditions and lowered expectations by the driver. It is, however, during the afternoon
peak that drivers are most apt to be both fatigued and rushed, with resulting shorter
tempers. Incidents occur most frequently during the summer months and do not appear
to be related to holiday stress. They are most frequently encountered under conditions
of moderate congestion, and alcohol or drugs may be contributing factors. While urban
areas were the most frequently reported location for such incidents, survey
respondents represented large metropolitan areas and this finding should be verified
through further research. The finding of moderately congested conditions is contrary to
the anecdotal evidence that congestion per se is the cause of increasing numbers of
these incidents. It is almost certainly a factor, but heavily congested conditions both
33
lower driver expectations and prevent escape for the truly violent. Heavy congestion
may also lessen the sense of anonymity that contributes to aggression on roadways.
The literature search and detailed survey illustrate not only a preference by
respondents for programs focused on enforcement and public information, but also
provide a clear indication that such efforts are rarely evaluated for their effectiveness.
Of those programs that are being monitored, most track the number of citations
recorded -- a measure of effectiveness that may be more closely related to patrol
activity than to improved driver behavior.
Still, several reporting jurisdictions are rating their programs as very effective using
measures of effectiveness that reflect goals of improving roadway safety. One of the
most comprehensive of these efforts, conducted by the State of New Jersey, includes
the continuing collection of data on collisions and evaluates its program based on an
impressive reduction in fatalities since program inception. The effort is cooperative,
sharing resources between jurisdictions, and features both strong enforcement and
public information components in addition to the use of technology. The program may
provide a model for jurisdictions that want to improve roadway safety through the
reduction of aggressive driving and road rage.
34
35
VI. Bibliography
1. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. Preventing Road Rage: Anger Management for
Drivers: Videocassette. 1998.
2. Aggressive Driving Research and Resources. Center for Public Safety and Injury
Prevention, University at Albany School of Public Health. 19 August 1998.
<http://wwwalbany.edu/sph/injr_016.html>.
3. Albano, Joseph G. An (sic) Review of New York Citys Red Light Camera Program.
New York City Department of Transportation, 13 May 1998.
4. Altman, Kyoko. Road Rage Runs Rampant in High-Stress U.S. Society. CNN
Interactive. 18 July 1997.
<http://www.cnn.com/us/9707/18/aggressive.driving/index.html>.
5. Casorio Bill Would Address Road Rage Deaths. On-line posting. 18 August 1997.
<http://www.pahouse.net/casorio/pr/056081897.htm >.
6. Chase, Marc. Flurry of Legislation Targets Unsafe Drivers. Chicago Sun Times. 6
April 1996. 5(Xs).
7. Connell, Dominic, BSc and Matthew Joint, BSc, MSc. MCIT. Driver Aggression in
Aggressive Driving: Three Studies by the AAA Safety Foundation for Traffic
Safety. November 1996. 25-35.
8. Cowie, Ian. City: Direct Action on Road Rage. The London Daily Telegraph. 13 April
1998. 24.
9. Deaths Down Due to Road Rage Campaign. Reuters. San Diego Union-Tribune. 10
April 1998. 8(A).
10. Donohoe, Dan. Prosecutors File Charges In Road Rage Case. King County,
Office of the Prosecuting Attorney. 15 January 1998.
11. Dont Be Blinded by Road Rage. Allstate.7 January 1999.
<http://allstate.com/safety/auto/rage.html>.
12. Editorial. Road Rage Bill Bad. Arizona Republic. 7 April 1998. 6(B).
13. Efron, Sonni. Prison Puts the Brakes on Bad Drivers. Milwaukee Journal
Sentinel.12 April 1998. 13.
14. Ellison, Patricia A., John M.Govern, Herbert L. Petri and Hichael H. Figler.
Anonymity and Aggressive Driving Behavior: A Field Study. Journal of Social
Behavior and Personality. 10: n 1. (1995). 265-272.
36
15. Flick, A. J. Unmarked Road Rage Police Car Making Its Mark. Tucson Citizen. 11
March 1998. 12(A).
16. Fumo, Paige. Illinois House Passes Bill on Road Rage. St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
28 March 1998. 11.
17. Gauen, Patrick. Illinois Troopers Join Campaign Against Road Rage. St. Louis
Post Dispatch. 3 December 1997.
<http://www.stlnet.com/postnet/home.nsf/NewsBreak/387868C911AD625B8625
65630005ABE4>.
18. Goehring, Janet B. Aggressive Driving: Background and Overview Report, in
Aggressive Driving and the Law: A Symposium Sponsored by the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration by the U.S. Department of Transportation
in Washington, D.C. 22-23 January 1998. National Conference of State
Legislatures. 1998.
19. Goehring, Janet B. 1998 Aggressive Driving Bills Summary: Transportation by the
National Conference of State Legislatures. 1998.
20. Goehring, Janet B. Taming the Road Warrior: Can Aggressive Driving Be Curbed?
in the National Conference of State Legislatures Transportation Series.
September 1997. n 7, 3-19.
21. Giuliani, Rudolph W. and Howard Safir. Traffic Safety/Quality of Life Plan of
Action. (New York: City of New York: 1998).
22. Governor Pataki Announces Legislation to Fight Road Rage. On-line posting. 8
February 1998. <http:/www.state.ny.us/governor/press/feb9_98.html>.
23. Governor Proclaims Aggressive Driving Crackdown a Success. Office of the
Governor, State of New York. 26 August 1997.
<http://www.state.ny.us/governor/press/aug26_3_97.html>
24. Greenwood, Tom. Commuting: Ontario Rangers Target Aggressive Drivers.
Detroit News. 30 March 1998. 10(D).
25. Gurnett, Kate. Humor Helps to Steer Defensive-Driving Class. Albany Times
Union. 3 March 1998. 3(D).
26. Hazelton, Leslie. Fear Is Increasing on the Roads, But That May Not Be A Bad
Thing. New York Times. 16 October 1997. 2(G).
27. Iverem, Esther. The Braking Point: Psychologist Helps Drivers Curb Road Rage.
Washington Post . 25 January 1997. (1)B.
37
28. James, George. On the Trail of Tailgaters and Other Aggressive Creatures. New
York Times. 5 October 1997. 13NJ (6).
29. James, Matthew. Road Rage. Australia Department of the Parliamentary Library,
Research Note 25, 1996-97. 17 April 1997. Publications@library.aph.gov.au.
30. Lacey, John H. and Connie H. Wiliszowski. Aggressive Driving Focus Groups with
Legal and Adjudication Staff for the U.S. Department of Transportation National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, National Safety Council, by the MidAmerica Research Institute, Inc. of New England. 3 December 1998.
31. Langley, John. Road Rage Is Driving Britain to Distraction. The Electronic
Telegraph. 14 April 1998.
<http://www.roe.ac.uk/rmbwww/cycling/Interactions/road_rage_report.html>.
32. Larson, John A., M.D. Steering Clear of Highway Madness, A Drivers Guide to
Curbing Stress and Strain. Wilsonville: BookPartners, Inc.: 1966.
33. Lewis, Shawn D. Troopers Crack Down on Aggressive Drivers. Detroit News. 13
August 1998. 1(C).
34. Mallory, Jim. Are There Cures for Road Rage? Denver Post Online: Todays
News. 27 October 1998. <http://www.denverpost.com/news/news1232.htm>.
35. McCafferty, Dennis. Putting the Brakes on Road Rage. USA Weekend. 16 August
1998. 4.
36. Measure Proposed to Keep Road Rage in Check. Associated Press. 30 January
1998. <http://www.virtuallynw.com/stories/1998/Jan /30/S340118.asp>.
37. Moreau, Carolyn. Lawmakers Try to Battle Road Rage. Hartford Courant. 10
March 1998. 3(A).
38. Moritz, Bob and Fergusen, Carrie. Commuters New Road Rage. The
Tennessean-Nashville. 26 August 1998. 1(A).
39. National Motorists Association Urges MDOT to Combat Road Rage. Michigan
Chapter of the National Motorists Association. 14 October 1997.
<http://www.motorists.com/MI/ragepress.html>.
40. NHTSA Aggressive Driver Programs. National Transportation Safety
Administration. 20 March 1998. <http://www.ntsa.dot.gov>.
41. Painter, John. Road Rage Prompts Crackdown by State Patrol. Portland
Oregonian. 16 July 1998. 02(B).
42. Parsons, Christi. Legislators Put Road Rage Bill on Fast Track. Chicago Tribune.
12 April 1998. 1(C).
38
43. Piscia, Jason. House OKs Road Rage Bill. Peoria Journal Star. 28 March 1998.
3(B).
44. Police Tackle Aggressive Driving on High-Volume Routes. Ministry of Attorney
General, Victoria, British Columbia 5 May 1998.
<http://www.ag.gov.bc.ca/media/9805may/980505g.htm>.
45. Preston, Larry D. and Yanming Xu. Aggressive Driving: Research & Resources.
Center for the Advanced Study of Public Safety and Injury Prevention, University
at Albany School of Public Health. 14 April 1998.
<http://www.albany.edu/sph/injr_016.html>.
46. Pro, Johnna A. The Fight Against Road Rage: Whats Being Done to Counter The
Trend and Lessen the Toll of Aggressive Driving. Pittsburgh Post -Gazette. 8
March 1998. 5(A).
47. RACQ Backs Road Rage Legislation. RACQ. 12 February 1998.
<http://www.racq.com.au/5_aboutracq/mediareleases16.htm>.
48. Reed, James B., Janet B. Goehring and Jeanne Mejeur. Traffic Safety Challenges
for State Legislatures Reducing Crashes, Casualties and Costs in Environment,
Energy and Transportation Program Transportation Series No. 5. by the National
Conference of State Legislatures, 1997.
49. Reid, Alice. Maryland Aims Laser Technology at Aggressive Drivers. Washington
Post. 22 November 1997. 1(G).
50. Scotia, Tina McCormack. Proposed Law May Cut Road Rage Incidents. Albany
Times Union. 18 March 1998. 8(A).
51. Roadwatch Citizen Report Form. Township of King, Ontario. 14 April 1998.
<http://www.township.king.on.ca/rwform.htm>.
52. Road Rage: Aggressive Drivers. Todays Issues: A Bibliography of Selected Items.
Washington State Library Collection. 5 October 1997.
<http://www.statelib.wa.gov/info_rscrs/reference_desk/todays_issues/ti_rage.ht
m>.
53. Road Rage" Cure on the Cards. The Automobile Association, Great Britain. 18
June 1998. <http://www.theaa.co.uk/theaa/u79.htm>.
54. Road Rage. Iowa Department of Transportation Home Page. 24 February 1998.
<http://www.state.ia.us/government/dot/roadrage.htm>.
55. Road Rage Law Proposal. MSNBC Eye on Washington. 11 September 1998.
<http://www.msnbc.com/local/KSHB/66217.asp>.
39
56. Shipley, Hon. Jenny. Road Rage: A Gross Lack of Self Control. New Zealand
Executive Government News Release Archive. 18 August 1997.
57. Smead, Ellen. Coalition Announces Safe, Courteous Driving Campaign. Coalition
for Consumer Health and Safety. 26 August 1997.
<http://www.healthandsafety.org/scdpress.html>.
58. Speed Cameras in Danger of Losing Credibility with Company Drivers. LEX
Service Press Release. 16 June 1997.
http://www.lvl.co.uk/press/PR876239468.html>.
59. Swope, Christopher. Mad Driver Disease: Is There a Cure? Governing Magazine.
March 1998. 41-44.
60. The Ohio State Highway Patrol -- Colonel Marshalls Monthly Message. On-line
posting. 3 March 1998. <http://www.odn.ohio.gov/ohp/0398mess.html>.
61. Turner, Shawn and Polk, Amy Ellen. Overview of Automated Enforcement in
Transportation. ITE Journal. (June 1988): 20-29.
62. Tysver, Robynn, Reed, Leslie, and Hicks, Nancy. In the Legislature. Omaha
World-Herald. 2 April 1998. 24.
63. U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Aggressive Driver Programs (Washington, D.C.: Government
Printing Office, 1998). DOT HS 808 730. Appendix C. 1-6.
64. U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. Phone Numbers for Reporting Impaired, Aggressive, or Unsafe
Driving. July 1998. DOT HS 808 718.
65. Wald, Matthew L. Temper Cited as Cause of 28,000 Road Deaths in a Year. New
York Times. 18 July 1997. 14(A).
40