Aggressive Driving is Emotionally Impaired Driving
Dr.
Leon James, Professor of Psychology
Dr. Diane Nahl, Associate Professor of Information and Computer Sciences
University of Hawaii
Email: DrDriving@aloha.net
Web: http://DrDriving.org
Historical
Perspective on Aggressive Driving........ 1
Aggressive Driving as a Cultural
Habit............ 3
Definition of Aggressive Driving........ 5
Analyzing the Language of
Aggressive Driving Laws............ 7
Applied Programs and Techniques
in Driving Psychology......................... 8
Driving Psychology Theory..... 11
Three Domains of Driving
Behavior: Affective, Cognitive,
Sensorimotor................ 11
Conclusion...................... 14
BIBLIOGRAPHY.................... 15
In North America,
cars have been mass produced for 104 years, and there are 177 million licensed
drivers in the United States. Driving is the most dangerous activity for the
majority of people in industrialized society. Driving accidents have killed
millions of people since 1900, and the number of deaths and injuries increase
in proportion to the number of drivers, and the total number of miles driven in
a given area (NCSA, 1994). There has been some progress in industrialized
countries where deaths and serious injuries from automobile collisions have
been reduced as a result of these developments (Rothe, 1993):
It’s important to
note that despite improvements in these seven areas, when viewed over decades,
the rate of traffic deaths and injuries remains relatively constant. For
instance, in the 1950s the annual fatality rate due to automobile collisions
was around 50,000 while in the 1990s it is near 40,000. Yes, there has been a
reduction, but the curve has quickly leveled off and remains high, around
40,000 deaths and approaching 6 million injuries annually.
There are two
opposing forces that contribute to these results. External environmental forces
operate to increase safety and reduce risk, such as modern highway management
and car design. Internal individual forces operate to maintain high risk at the
expense of safety, such as:
·
Widespread acceptance of a competitive norm that values
getting ahead of other drivers.
·
A daily round schedule of time pressure and mismanagement with
rushing and routinely disobeying traffic laws.
·
Incomplete driver education curricula so that most people
have inadequate training in emotional self-control as drivers.
·
Media portrayals of aggressive driving behaviors in a fun
context.
·
A psychological tendency to maintain a preferred level of
risk, so that people increase their risk level when environmental improvements
are introduced (also called "risk homeostasis").
Scientists and safety
officials attribute this resistance to accident reduction to the attitude and
behavior of drivers who tend to respond to safety improvements by driving more
dangerously. It has been noted that a critical aspect of driving is the
driver’s competence in balancing risk with safety. The risk in driving is
largely under the control of the driver. The driver decides in each moment what
risks to take and which to inhibit or avoid. Risk taking is a tendency that
varies greatly among drivers as well as for the same driver under different
conditions. Thus, if a road is made safer by straightening it, or by removing
objects that interfere with visibility, drivers will compensate for the greater
safety by driving faster—the "risk homeostasis" phenomenon (Wilde,
1994; Summala, 1987).
The result is the
maintenance of a constant subjective feeling of risk that is the normal
habitual threshold for a particular driver. In such a driving environment, the
rate of deaths or injuries tends to remain high despite numerous safety
improvements. The societal response to the stalemate between road safety and
individual risk tolerance has been to increase enforcement activities by
monitoring, ticketing, and jailing hundreds of thousands of drivers.
Nevertheless, the number of deaths and injuries has remained nearly steady.
Besides law enforcement, there has been an increase in litigation due to
aggressive driving disputes between drivers, as well as the growth of
psychotherapy and counseling services, including anger management clinics and
workshops, and community initiatives. These scattered attempts have not caused
a change in basic driving patterns.
Aggressiveness, rage
and anger reactions are commonplace on the road because they are learned
habits, acquired by children in the backseat, where kids are not merely passive
passengers. Kids observe and react internally to their drivers' cursing or
yelling, obscene or violent gestures, trash talk, and other common forms of
derision and retaliation. Children are also proprioceptively conditioned to
levels of speed in an in-car environment that emphasizes rushing and getting
ahead of others. This role model distorts attitudes about what is dangerous,
and raises kids to be normal aggressive drivers that increase risk for
everyone. Aggressive driver role models in the media can also contribute to
disrespect for people and traffic regulations. The risky driver role model
lowers the threshold for expressing disrespect. It lowers the threshold for
endangering others, making it acceptable to run a red light, or to drink and
drive. Aggressive driver role models can erode a driver's sense of social
responsibility.
Aggressive driving is
on the increase because it is a learned habit that is transmitted from one
generation to the next, and reinforced in the media. Unchecked, the incidence
and severity of aggressive driving and road rage are expected to continue to
rise. The new aggressive driving legislation and new law enforcement programs
are putting more pressure on millions of drivers to modify their traffic
emotions, their competitive mode of driving, and their acceptance of high-risk
that they are willing to impose on others around them. The re-education and
continued training of the nation's 177 million drivers must be a priority.
Given adequate tools and motivation, most drivers can train themselves to be
less competitive and more obedient to traffic regulations.
Without this
training, drivers constantly find themselves in psychological states that
should be considered emotionally impaired driving. They cannot adequately deal
with the rules of engagement on crowded streets and roads. Emotional
disturbances at the wheel can be as dangerous as alcohol or drug impairment. We
believe that aggressive driving is largely a product of routinely driving in
emotionally impaired states due to insufficient training. Of course there is a
range from mild to severe degrees of impairment. There is diminished
self-control and impaired judgment due to emotions that interfere with
objective perception and lead to biased thinking. A variety of impairments are
associated with aggressive driving:
1.
Under the
influence of alcohol, drugs, medication, drowsiness, depression or severe pain.
Driving under the influence of these mental states is aggressive because they
distort perception, reduce self-control, and impose higher risk on other
drivers.
2.
Under the
influence of anger or rage.
Driving under the influence of anger is aggressive because it loosens
inhibitions, intensifies self-righteous indignation, and encourages retaliation
and unlawful acts.
3.
Under the
influence of fear or panic.
Driving under the influence of fear is aggressive because it promotes
irrational thought sequences that misinterpret the behavior of other drivers,
perceiving threat where none is intended.
4.
Under the
influence of stress.
Driving under the influence of stress is aggressive because it increases
irritability and explosive reactions, and reduces self-control.
5.
Driving
distracted.
Driving under the influence of distraction is aggressive because it endangers
others due to inattention and imposes higher risk on other drivers.
6.
Under the
influence of speed and risk addiction
Driving under the influence of speed addiction is aggressive because it imposes
higher risk on others.
7.
Self-appointed
vigilante
Driving under the influence of vengeance and retribution is aggressive because
they encourage retaliation and unlawful acts.
8.
Under the
influence of habitual rushing mania, including reacting impulsively or
unpredictably under time pressure.
Driving under the influence of
rushing mania is aggressive because it reduces self-control, imposes higher
risk on others, and endangers them through inattention or opportunistic
maneuvers.
9.
Habitual
disrespect for the law, ignoring regulations and harboring hostility towards
officers.
Being a scofflaw is aggressive because it encourages unlawful acts and imposes
higher risk on others.
10. Habitual disrespect for others, holding biased assumptions
and making wrong conclusions.
Driving under the influence of disrespect is aggressive because it encourages
retaliation, imposes higher risk on others, misinterprets the behavior of other
drivers, perceives threat where none is intended, and denigrates others.
11. Lack of awareness and habitual denial of one's own driving
mistakes.
Driving under the influence of denial is aggressive because it reduces
self-control, limits driver self-improvement and imposes higher risk on others.
Driving is
emotionally challenging because unexpected things happen constantly, including
dangerous things and being picked on. In addition, congestion intensifies time
pressure from delays, and there is a greater diversity of drivers, some less
competent than others. The rules of engagement on the road are harsh and
competitive, even hostile. Most drivers find these conditions emotionally
challenging and experience difficulty coping. Therefore, most people routinely
drive in an emotionally impaired state. Drivers are filled with competitive
motives and explosive intentions that they are not fully aware of. These
motives and intentions are emotionally impaired states because they distort the
driver's thinking and amplify the emotions beyond adequate self-control.
Drivers use these emotions to engage in impulsive and risky behavior, giving
little thought to those they endanger by taking more risks. These emotions
encourage drivers to be self-serving and opportunistic.
Aggressive driving is
driving under the influence of impaired emotions, resulting in behavior that
imposes one's own preferred level of risk on others. This is aggressive because
it assumes that others are capable of handling the same risk level, and that
one has the right to increase danger for others. There are three categories of
impaired emotions:
1. Impatience and Inattentiveness
2. Power Struggle
3. Recklessness and Road Rage
The majority of
motorists drive in an emotionally impaired state at certain times. Some
motorists drive in this state more often than others, and pose a serious risk
to themselves and others. Driving violations can be identified by reference to
these three categories of impaired emotions. Each category of impaired emotion
leads to different types of traffic violations.
Category 1:
Impatience and Inattentiveness
· Driving through red
· Speeding up to yellow
· Rolling stops
· Cutting corners or rolling over double line
· Blocking intersection
· Failure to yield
· Improper lane change or weaving
· Driving 5 to 15 mph above limit
· Following too close
· Not signaling when required
· Erratically slowing down or speeding up
· Taking too long
Category 2: Power
Struggle
· Blocking passing lane, refusing to move over
· Closing the gap to prevent entry
· Threatening or insulting by yelling, gesturing, honking
repeatedly
· Tailgating to punish or coerce
· Cutting off to retaliate
· Braking suddenly to retaliate
Category 3:
Recklessness and Road Rage
· Chasing in a duel
· Driving drunk
· Pointing a gun or shooting
· Assaulting with the car or battering object
· Driving at very high speeds
The solution to
aggressive driving is to develop supportive driving styles that reduce risk and
individual competition in favor of teamwork and cooperation (James & Nahl,
2000a). Drivers in traffic are highly dependent on each other's coordinated
actions. Supportive driving acknowledges that driving is a group activity and
drivers are to some extent responsible for each other's needs. For example,
closing the gap in response to noticing a car that wants to enter your lane is
counter-productive to facilitating the flow of traffic because that vehicle is
not going to disappear. Allowing the car into the lane on request facilitates
traffic flow through teamwork and coordination. This is the safer, more
rational and more humane alternative, but there is resistance to developing
supportive driving styles that must be overcome. Clearly, drivers need to
become more knowledgeable and objective about their own behavior since research
shows that the majority of drivers are unaware of the extent of their own
aggressiveness (James & Nahl, 1998). For instance, in answer to the question: What percent of
drivers are aggressive?, respondents say 85%. However, when asked What percent
of time do you drive aggressively?, respondents say 35%. This 50% difference
represents an awareness gap because it shows that they underestimate their own
contribution to the problem.
The trend in new
legislation is to require greater personal accountability for specific driving
behavior. It makes a big difference whether drivers get a ticket they can pay
in the mail, or get arrested and face misdemeanor or felony charges, and maybe
have their vehicle impounded or license suspended. The driving public has a
knowledge gap and needs to catch-up with new legislation. Surveys show that the
majority do not know what the law considers to be aggressive driving, and when
they find out, many disagree about what is aggressive. In 1998, nine states
introduced a combination of 26 bills on aggressive driving; 4 states had bills
pending in 1999 (James & Nahl, 2000b). Most of these bills attempt to
define aggressive driving offenses and establish penalties for them.
Many states are
struggling with the issue of how to define aggressive driving. This difficulty
has led to the death of some bills that are perceived as legally too problematic
to define and implement. Some bills proposed intent as part of an aggressive driving definition. This creates a
problem about how to establish intent. Successful bills adopt a behavioral
language that is specific and observable, rather than vague. The following
examples exhibit vague references vs. specific behavioral descriptions in some
current bills:
|
Washington (vague) |
passing improperly |
What is "improperly"? Needs specific behavioral
description. |
|
Virginia (vague) |
operating a
vehicle in a threatening or intimidating manner with the intent to cause
others to lose control or be forced off the highway |
"Threatening manner" is unclear. "Intent" of
driver is unknown to officer and calls for judgment that can be questioned
in court. Forcing off the road is observable. |
|
Virginia (vague) |
operating a
vehicle with a reckless disregard for the rights of others or in a manner
that endangers any property or person |
"Reckless disregard" is a judgment call. Better to use
language that describes the observable behavior. |
|
New York (vague) |
driving with
intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person in a manner contrary to law |
"Intent" is difficult to prove and calls for judgment.
Better to describe the driver's behavior, e.g., "honked repeatedly
while tailgating" |
|
Arizona (specific) |
Drivers
could be charged with aggressive driving if they are cited for committing a
combination of two or more listed offenses: 1.
failing to
obey a traffic control device 2.
passing on
the right or on the shoulder 3.
tailgating
or following too closely 4.
failing to
signal lane changes or to change lane properly 5.
failing to
yield the right-of-way 6.
running a
red light or stop sign 7.
passing a
vehicle on the right by traveling off the pavement |
Good examples of
behavioral language, all are observable by an officer. Notice the
difference between "failing to change lanes properly" (vague) and "failing
to signal lane changes" (specific). Here both are used for the same
offense. The specific part strengthens the vague one. |
</div>
Driving psychology is an applied field that creates a
popular language of behavioral thinking about driving as a societal issue. This
issue is complex and overlaps with technical and non-technical intellectual
environments. The theory and concepts of driving psychology are adapted from
several disciplines (James & Nahl, 1996a, b):
· Social psychology (e.g., schemas, scripts, attribution
error, territoriality, etc.)
· Developmental psychology (e.g., stages of moral development,
moral IQ, etc.)
· Health psychology (e.g., resistance to compliance, addictive
behaviors, lifestyle management, anger management, etc.)
· Applied psychology (e.g., driving behavior, risk
homeostasis, ergonomics of errors, etc.)
· Traffic psychology (driver management, pedestrian behavior,
traffic safety education, etc.)
· Clinical psychology (behavior self-modification of
maladaptive habits, etc.)
· Traffic sociology (e.g., social conventions on highways,
attitudes towards laws, etc.)
· Automotive medicine (e.g., seat belt and child restraint
use, effect of cars on health, etc.)
· Transportation engineering (traffic calming devices,
alternative transportation initiatives, etc.)
Driving psychology principles and programs are cast in a
popularized but scientific language that is suitable for people of different
educational level, age, and experience. In order for driver management programs
to be effective, the drivers involved must be motivated to cooperate on their
own. The desire for cooperation must stem from their understanding and
acceptance. Understanding must be instructed, and acceptance must be won. The
less the perception of coercion, the greater the need for voluntary compliance,
which depends on adequate understanding.
Driving psychology maintains an internal rhetoric of
persuasion designed to empower people to overcome their spontaneous inner
resistance to its supportive principles. Experiencing feelings of resistance to
the principles of driving psychology is part of the process since it involves
self-assessment and self-modification. There is a natural and predictable
resistance to changing automatized sensorimotor habits. There is resistance to
changing one's cognitive norms of criticizing and blaming other drivers. There
is resistance to giving up affective norms of hostility and self-assertiveness
as a driver. Driving psychology focuses on these forms of internal resistance,
and provides drivers with socio-cultural methods for overcoming their own
internal resistance to change.
Driving psychology
employs several behavior management techniques:
1. Behavioral and transactional engineering
·
teaching principles of self-modification of behavior (short
term and long term)
·
developing databases of taxonomic inventories of affective,
cognitive, and sensorimotor driving habits across regions and time
2. Group dynamic techniques for engineering new generational
norms
·
Kurt Lewin—group dynamic forces on personality change (Gold,
1999)
·
Albert Ellis—rational-emotive integration (Ellis &
Powers, 1998) including emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1996)
·
L. Kohlberg—levels of moral development (1976)
·
Albert Bandura—social influencing mechanisms in the self
(1989)
3. Behavioral assessment of skills
· Formative evaluation of learning or training
· Summative evaluation of instruction
· Testing of competencies and licensing
· Long term self-assessment procedures
4. Mass media communications and interventions
·
Content analysis of media portrayals of driving and their
dissemination to the public to increase people’s awareness of their potential
harmful influence.
·
Musicals and staged neighborhood or school productions to
encourage positive role models for young drivers and to allow them to explore
the socio-moral dialectic of driving behavior.
·
Radio call-in talk shows during heavy traffic hours to allow
drivers a socially approved mechanism for expressing complaints and for sharing
solutions and advice.
·
Making available Driving Informatics facilities in public
libraries and the workplace to satisfy people’s driving information needs (Nahl
& James, 1999)
5.
Data-driven accountability
· Accident analysis and reconstruction
· Mandating standardized police record keeping on a regional
or national basis
· Building national accident databases for scientists
· Building national, regional, and local data repositories
obtained anonymously.
In order to achieve
significant reductions in crash, injury, and fatality statistics, the focus on
the individual must be strengthened. We developed driving psychology in
response to the urgent need for managing driving behavior in an industrialized society.
The increase in injuries and their cost is preventable, but it requires
socio-cultural interventions by government, social agencies, citizen
organizations, and especially, individuals. Law enforcement methods alone will
not be totally effective because people will revert to aggressive driving
styles when detection can be avoided (Bjornskau & Elvik, 1992). Compliance
is dependent on constant surveillance.
Internal methods for
managing drivers’ attitudes and habits of thinking can be used to influence
driving norms. Driving psychology provides the theory and methods for creating
this type of internal influence by securing the voluntary cooperation and
support of drivers for lifelong self-improvement activities. These internal
methods can be fully effective in the long run if they are incorporated into
the personality and moral philosophy of each driver. Internal influence cannot
be coerced since drivers can fake attitudes to comply with tests or
inspections. As soon as surveillance is withdrawn or eluded, the negative
attitude asserts itself in freedom. Therefore, internal influence is possible
only through the voluntary cooperation of each individual. This can be
engineered by means of the social influence process that naturally occurs in
support groups (Quality Driving Circles (QDCs) (James & Nahl, 2000a). Long
term membership in such groups reduces resistance to change and builds
enthusiasm for practicing supportive driving scripts, schemas, roles, and
norms.
The external view on
driving includes road conditions and vehicle manipulation. Data on these is
obtainable from instruments, measurements, and observer evaluation. The
internal view on driving is the perspective of the drivers themselves: their
sensations, perceptions, verbalizations, thoughts, decisions, emotions, and
feelings. Data on these live aspects of the behavior of drivers cannot be
obtained by instruments, nor by an observer. Instead, some method must be
devised by which the drivers can make records of their on-going perceptions,
thoughts, and feelings. Our method is to obtain self-witnessing reports made by drivers who talk out loud into a tape recorder while they are driving (James, 1986). These concurrent reports are superior to retrospective reports obtained by
interviewing or testing drivers (Ericsson & Simon, 1984; Bloom &
Broder, 1950). After-the fact data depend on recollection and other
distortions, while concurrent reports allow drivers to label thoughts and
emotions as they occur, thus increasing the reliability, validity, and
comprehensiveness of the report.