• Mission & Governance
• Services Overview
• How to Get Involved
• Standing Committees
• NCSL Foundation

• Issue Areas: A-Z
• State-Federal Relations
• NCSL Standing Committees
• News from D.C. and the States

• About State Legislatures
• Elections, Campaigns & Redistricting
• NCSL's StateConnect Directory
• Web Sites

• Online Guide to NCSL Services
• Staff Sections and Networks
• Meetings & Professional Development
• Staff Directories

• Meetings Calendar
• Online Registration
• Meetings Home Page
• Legislative Summit

• Bookstore
• State Legislatures Magazine
• NCSL's StateConnect Directory

Environment, Energy and Transportation Program

Aggressive Driving: Background and Overview Report

January 2000

Prepared by Janet B. Goehring, Program Principal, NCSL Environment, Energy and Transportation Program

Contents

Introduction
Defining Aggressive Driving
Research into the Problem of Aggressive Driving
The Psychology of Aggressive Driving
Law Enforcement Efforts
Citizen Initiative
Coalition for Consumer Health and Safety Campaign
Technological Solutions
Legislative Initiatives
Conclusion
Acknowledgements
References
World Wide Web Sites
Contacts for More Information
Appendix A

Introduction

Drivers know it when they see it. Cars racing down a crowded road, darting in and out of lanes, tailgating, and drivers yelling and gesturing at others are all behaviors that are recognized as aggressive driving. In some instances the driving behavior escalates into assault with the vehicle itself or with a weapon, increasing the severity of the event from a traffic incident to a criminal offense. Drivers are becoming more and more fearful of the threat of violence on the highways and evidence indicates these incidents are occurring with greater frequency. The media regularly report about serious incidents.

Growing concerns about these drivers and the hazards they create on the roads have lead to a flurry of activity by safety groups, law enforcement, mental health professionals and legislatures. Although some argue that aggressive driving is not new, that these driving behaviors have always existed except now the media have given it a catchy name and are drawing attention to these behaviors. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety reports that aggressive driving and its causes have been "rediscovered" in the 1990s. Hostility on the road has been a continuing problem in one form or another for most of this century. Although, it is a problem that needs to be addressed and the Institute supports enforcement techniques such as photo radar and red light cameras to reduce the types of violations that are often associated with aggressive driving.

This report examines definitions of aggressive driving, the psychological theories about this behavior, law enforcement programs and other efforts aimed at aggressive driving, and state legislative activity.

Defining Aggressive Driving

Most drivers will tell you that they "know it when they see it." Aggressive driving includes a whole range of driving behaviors that might include speeding, tailgating, weaving and running red lights or any combination of these activities. Gesturing, yelling and flashing high beams are other actions often mentioned in any description of aggressive driving. It is difficult, however, to concisely define aggressive driving in one simple statement. Another issue is the distinction between aggressive driving and road rage. The difficulty in defining the problem has lead to questions about how prevalent it is and how to research it effectively. To thoroughly examine the issue, however, a clear definition of aggressive driving needs to be established. Once a consistent definition is found, targeting the behavior becomes easier.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) defines aggressive driving as "the operation of a motor vehicle in a manner which endangers or is likely to endanger persons or property." A progression of unlawful driving actions such as speeding, weaving or unsafe passing can constitute "endangers or likely to endanger." These actions can include a range of offenses up to and including reckless driving, although aggressive driving does not necessarily require a willful and wanton disregard for the safety of others. NHTSA sees aggressive driving as a traffic offense and road rage as a criminal offense. NHTSA defines road rage as "an assault with a motor vehicle or other dangerous weapon by the operator or passenger(s) of one motor vehicle on the operator or passengers(s) of another motor vehicle or vehicles precipitated by an incident which occurred on a roadway."

Many others have set out definitions. For example, Mark Edwards, American Automobile Association, defines aggressive driving as "operation of a motor vehicle without regard to others' safety." He distinguishes road rage from aggressive driving. Road rage is "assault with the intent to do harm arising from the use of a motor vehicle." The New York State Governor's Traffic Safety Committee defines aggressive driving as "the operation of a motor vehicle in an unsafe and hostile manner without regard for others."

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 traffic violations that endanger others. Participants drew distinctions between road rage and aggressive driving.

State legislators who have attempted to introduce legislation to create the offense of aggressive driving also have grappled with the definition. Bills that have been introduced include a variety of definitions. Some states offered a level of intent; others included threats or the display of weapons. Most states tried to specify a series of traffic violations that constituted the offense. Arizona, Delaware and Nevada have passed new aggressive driving laws. These laws and the other bills introduced by legislators are discussed in more detail in the legislative section of the report.

Research into the Problem of Aggressive Driving

NHTSA Studies

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has conducted and is planning several research efforts to examine the issue of aggressive driving. NHTSA recently completed a nationwide survey about speeding and other unsafe driving actions. The goal of the study was to determine driver attitudes about speeding and other unsafe driving behaviors, situations in which these occur, characteristics of unsafe drivers and possible countermeasures. The telephone survey involved 6,000 drivers of all ages. Drivers were asked a variety of questions including under what conditions they commit unsafe driving behaviors or exceed the speed limits and reasons why they do it.

Selected results from the survey follow:

• 62 percent said the behavior of another driver has been a threat to them in the last year;
• 36 percent listed another driver cutting in front of them as a threatening behavior;
• 75 percent felt that it is important to do something about unsafe drivers;
• 33 percent report that they feel driving is more dangerous now than a year ago;
• 23 percent reported driving 10 mph or more over the speed limit on an interstate in the past week;
• 52 percent were satisfied with current amounts of police enforcement of red light running;
• 50 percent were satisfied with enforcement of speed limits;
• 61 percent said there was too little enforcement of tailgating.

The study revealed that age and gender are important factors in unsafe driving. Men are more likely than women to engage in the unsafe driving behaviors identified in the survey. Young drivers commit more unsafe driving actions than older drivers. Unsafe driving tends to decline as age increases. Countermeasures judged to be effective in reducing unsafe driving and speeding included placing more police in traffic, issuing more tickets, increasing fines and revoking licenses. Photo-enforcement efforts were also supported by the participants.

NHTSA also conducted Capital Beltway User Focus Groups. The participants were grouped by their self-described driving behavior. Three groups represented the general population, two represented "aggressive" drivers and three were commercial vehicle drivers. For the general population groups, aggressive driving was listed as the number one concern and one of the three most serious causes of crashes. These participants showed more concern about aggressive driving than did participants in a 1994 focus group in the same area.

The focus groups also examined the driving behavior of the participants. Most said that they do not obey the speed limit and drive faster, but at what they considered safe speeds. Those that tended to be aggressive drivers were more competitive and got angry when cutoff. They blocked other cars and often drove faster than others. Many of the participants wanted more enforcement on the beltway.

NHTSA is currently examining the driver characteristics associated with speeding and other actions that lead to crashes. Further studies sponsored by NHTSA will develop methods to determine the prevalence of aggressive driving. These will include setting out specific driving behaviors that are generally considered to be aggressive when observed by a police officer and a large-scale observational study of aggressive driving behavior. Plans are in the works to evaluate law enforcement efforts targeting aggressive drivers. Finally, NHTSA will be conducting a demonstration project using enforcement technology on the George Washington Parkway.

Findings from a study by the Institute for Traffic Safety Management and Research at the University of Albany, in conjunction with Fact Finders, Inc. and the New York Governor's Traffic Safety Committee, showed that most drivers think that aggressive driving is a problem on the roads. Respondents to the telephone survey in New York said that drivers are more aggressive now than they were five years ago. Almost 29 percent of those surveyed say they see someone driving aggressively every day. Most of the participants admitted that they tend to drive more aggressively when in an hurry, but not when angry or in a bad mood.

The survey also indicated that aggressive driving poses problems for teens. According to Anne McCartt, deputy director of the Institute, the survey found that 24 percent of those aged 16 to 24 say they sometimes or most of the time drive aggressively as compared with 11 percent for those aged 45 to 54. More young drivers reported unsafe lane changing, tailgating, gesturing and flashing their high beams in the previous few months than did older drivers. Young drivers are more likely to engage in aggressive behavior on the road when they are in a bad mood, angry at another driver or in a hurry. Male drivers reported driving more aggressively than female drivers.

According to a AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety study, incidents of aggressive driving have increased by 7 percent every year since 1990. A total of 12,610 people were injured and 218 killed as the result of aggressive driving incidents. The study is based upon 10,037 separate incidents of aggressive driving between Jan. 1, 1990, and Sept. 1, 1996, reported in police records and newspaper articles. Although the study is not a scientific survey, it does point out the growth of the problem. David K. Willis, president of the Foundation, warns that "for every aggressive driving incident serious enough to result in a police report or newspaper article, there are hundreds or thousands more which never got reported to the authorities."

The events that precipitated the aggressive driving incidents in the study proved to be fairly trivial. Stated reasons for violent traffic disputes included arguments over parking spaces, cutting off other drivers, minor collisions, obscene gestures, loud music, slow driving, tailgating and similar behaviors. The disputes, however, are rarely the result of one event, but an accumulation of stressors that add up to the last straw. Many of the incidents described in the survey involved weapons. In approximately 44 percent of the violent altercations the perpetrator used a firearm, knife, club or tire iron. In 23 percent of the cases, the attacker used the car as a weapon. When the aggressive driving behavior escalates into an incident with weapons and assault, it no longer is a traffic offense, but becomes a criminal act.

The AAA Potomac office in the Washington, D.C., area conducted a survey of its members in a 1997 poll and found that motorists named aggressive driving as their top concern. The survey showed that drivers fear the aggressive driver (44 percent) more than a drunk driver (31 percent). In addition, 90 percent of the respondents feel that aggressive driving is on the rise in the Washington, D.C. area.

Motorists see aggressive driving all the time. Ninety percent of those surveyed said they witnessed aggressive driving in the last year and 80 percent witnessed such behavior in the last month. One half said they had seen an extreme example of aggressive driving within the last week. Not only are these drivers seeing aggressiveness on the roads, they are participants as well. Almost two out of three people in the survey admitted to driving aggressively in the last year. Some of the behaviors admitted included speeding, gesturing, tailgating and slowing down and speeding up to get even with another driver. In stating why they drove aggressively, the respondents cited issues related to traffic congestion including running late for appointments and frustration with slow travel. Lon Anderson of the Potomac office indicated that as "congestion mounts, drivers get impatient and tempers flare." He sees a general loss of civility on the roads.

The Psychology of Aggressive Driving

Mental health professionals have been examining the emotional and psychological causes of aggressive driving and road rage. Some psychologists see cultural norms and learned behavior as a basis of aggressive driving. Others cite anger as the root of the problem. The opinions of several mental health professionals are discussed in this section.

"Aggressive driving is not extreme any more; it has become a cultural norm on the highway," says traffic psychology Professor Leon James. He says that more angry exchanges are occurring between drivers and that a culture of disrespect exists on the roads. Children learn this behavior from their parents, cartoons and the media. Road rage is the habit of aggressive driving.

James describes three types of road rage. Verbal includes yelling, gesturing, honking and insulting. Quiet road rage involves complaining, rushing, resisting and competing. Finally, epic road rage is cutting drivers off, blocking, chasing, fighting and shooting.

The first step to conquering road rage begins with acknowledgment of the feelings of impatience, frustration, anger and intolerance that drivers experience. Second, drivers should try self-witnessing behind the wheel. James suggests drivers get to know their driving personality by pretending to give a play-by-play summary of their drive, speaking out loud. He even suggests putting a tape recorder in the car to record driver's comments. The third step is to modify driving behaviors one at a time. The goal is to become a supportive driver as opposed to an aggressive or defensive driver.

James advocates for emotions-based driver's education in elementary school. He says the classes need to start at this young age before the children learn an attitude of disrespect on the roads. It's a matter of developing the emotional fitness to start driving as a teenager. In an effort to address the problem of road rage in younger drivers, James has organized a group called Youth Against Road Rage (YARR). He describes YARR as youth working to protect themselves and the next generation from growing up with road rage and then becoming a part of it.

John A. Larson, director of the Institute of Stress Medicine in Connecticut considers road rage to be a "culmination of an escalating sequence of punitive behaviors meted out from one driver to another." Characteristics of an aggressive driver include placing top priority on getting to their destination in the fastest possible time; competing with other fast cars; refusing to give other vehicles the right of way; feeling contempt for drivers who do not think, look, act or drive like they do; and believing they have the right to punish other drivers. He says that the model and teachers of road rage include movies and television. Larson suggests that driver's education courses need to teach the psychology of driving, courtesy and alternative behaviors. In essence, drivers need to learn good manners. Larson leads seminars on changing driving attitudes aimed at reducing risky driving behavior.

Nerenberg describes four major traffic situations that trigger road rage:

• Feeling endangered, such as being cut off;
• Being detained by other drivers who are going slowly;
• Watching other people breaking the rules of the road;
• Feeling the need to retaliate.

The disorder exists when someone fires a gun, uses the car as a weapon, brandishes a weapon against another driver or stalks them. Traffic behaviors such as cutting in front of other drivers, slamming on the brakes to surprise a tailgater, obscene gestures and yelling, honking the horn, and flashing headlights repeatedly are considered psychologically pathological if exhibited twice within a one-year period.

To address road rage disorder, Nerenberg recommends therapy that teaches alternative reactions. He includes therapy sessions in the car while the client is driving. James and Nerenberg have teamed together to create a curriculum for the American Institute for Public Safety aimed at breaking the cycle of aggressive driving. The "Roadrageous" program can be completed via video, Internet or CD-rom.

The Institute for Mental Health Initiatives has been researching anger management issues for 15 years. Recognizing that anger often leads to aggressive driving behavior, the Institute published a booklet called Anger: A Long Walk or the San Diego Freeway? The booklet explores alternatives for dealing with anger while driving. It also describes the Institute's "RETHINK" method of dealing with anger. The letters in RETHINK stand for the following concepts:

• Recognize anger in yourself and others;
• Empathize and see the point of view of the person who makes you angry;
• Think clearly about what gets you mad;
• Hear where the other person is coming from;
• Integrate expressions of your anger with expressions of love and respect;
• Notice what your body feels like when you are angry;

Keep the conversation in the present.

The program includes manuals, videos and workshops.

Law Enforcement Efforts

Law enforcement agencies across the country are developing programs to make the roads safer.

NHTSA is aware of the District of Columbia and at least 24 states that have established law enforcement programs that specifically target aggressive drivers. Many of the programs share similar characteristics and several are highlighted here.

A coalition of 21 law enforcement agencies and safety groups in the Washington, D.C., area organized a program called "Smooth Operator." It is based upon a similar effort in California. The goal of the effort is to raise drivers' awareness of dangerous behaviors on the road and to reduce the number of incidents through education and enforcement. The program involves intense enforcement, a media campaign and education. The enforcement component is conducted in one-week "waves" where heightened patrols specifically target aggressive driving. For this effort, aggressive driving is defined as a combination of unsafe and unlawful driving actions, such as speeding, tailgating and weaving, that demonstrate a disregard for safety and endanger people's lives. During the first wave in the spring of 1997, 11,835 vehicles were stopped and 11,927 summons were issued. The second wave resulted in almost 16,000 stops with 15,134 summons issued, resulting in 285 criminal arrests.

More than 28,000 enforcement contacts were made during the two waves. The dominant offense proved to be speeding or speed related. The level of enforcement shows that aggressive driving behavior will not be tolerated. After the enforcement waves, public service announcements appeared on television to educate drivers about the program. The announcements called for people to be "smooth operators" by practicing safe and courteous driving. The campaign also offered tips on how to react when confronted by an aggressive driver. This education and enforcement approach is not unique, however. A similar effort was used successfully in North Carolina to increase seat belt usage.

Another component of Smooth Operator was the use of a special cellular phone number to help identify aggressive drivers. Motorists who see an incident dial #77 to report it directly to local law enforcement agencies.

The Arizona Highway Patrol and the Governor's Safety Office teamed together three years ago to start an enforcement effort targeted at aggressive drivers. Patrol officers in marked and unmarked vehicles travel the roads specifically looking for egregious driving behavior such as speeding 20-30 mph over the limit, erratic lane changes and tailgating. The patrol uses the unmarked cars because it believes aggressive drivers are on the lookout for patrol cars and will slow down when sighted. Zero tolerance is given to the offending drivers, in that no warnings are given. Everyone pulled over in this program receives a reckless driving or similar ticket. The officers stop an average of 15 vehicles in a four- to five-hour shift.

The program was heavily publicized initially to inform the public. News stories included photographs of the unmarked vehicles. Newscasters travel with the officers on occasion to film the aggressive driving incidents and report on the tickets issued. Lieutenant Gary Zimmerman of the highway patrol says that "people have been very supportive of the program." He believes they have had good success even though it is hard to measure the effects. The patrol now receives fewer calls reporting aggressive drivers. Zimmerman also indicated that they are making a lot of arrests for other crimes in these particular traffic stops. He believes the "aggressive driver has no respect for law enforcement whatsoever."

Colorado started its ADAPT (Aggressive Drivers Are Public Threats) program in late 1997. The statewide effort includes an extensive media program and interagency enforcement efforts. Heavy enforcement campaigns focused on congested highways in the Denver area. The state patrol also implemented a cell phone number (*CSP) for motorists to report aggressive drivers.

As a result of this emphasis, more tickets have been written for tailgating, lane violations, failure to yield and improper passing. The number of speeding tickets has dropped. The patrol has tried to focus on the behaviors that lead to crashes. The total number of tickets issued in Denver has increased from 49,026 for the first nine months of 1997 to 56,129 for the same period in 1998.

The Massachusetts State Police joined with the Governor's Highway Safety Bureau and the Registry of Motor Vehicles to address the problem of aggressive drivers. A study was commissioned to examine characteristics of aggressive drivers in the state to help focus enforcement efforts. The program includes enforcement that targets aggressive driving, the use of unmarked vehicles and public awareness efforts. The education campaign slogan is "Road Respect--Tame the Rage." Police will be focusing on traffic infractions that tend to constitute aggressive driving. These are actions that fall somewhat short of the "operating to endanger" law. In addition, officers can issue an "Immediate Threat Form" for aggressive driving. The form is forwarded to the Registry of Motor Vehicles where the driver may receive a 30-day license suspension. Violators will be required to attend the National Safety Council course called "The Attitudinal Dynamics of Driving."

The Boston Police Department also established an aggressive driving program called "Operation Drive Safe." It serves as a model for applying community policing strategies into the aggressive driving problem.

"Slick Roof" trooper cars are being used in New York's campaign to curb aggressive drivers. The marked cars are not equipped with traditional roof-mounted lighting. Instead, strobe lights are placed in several locations on the vehicle including headlights, tail lamps and turn signals. The vehicles come equipped with video cameras to record aggressive drivers. The state police also use "road rage vans" with video equipment. The vans work with marked troop cars during aggressive driving enforcement campaigns. The vans record driving incidents and communicate them to the troop cars who then make the traffic stop. The enforcement efforts complement a statewide education campaign sponsored by the Governor's Traffic Safety Commission. The slogan is: "Steer clear of aggressive driving. Getting there shouldn't be half the battle."

NHTSA awarded a cooperative agreement in the amount of $476,525 to the Milwaukee Police Department in October 1998 to set up a law enforcement demonstration project. The purpose of the project is to demonstrate and evaluate an innovative enforcement and public information and education program designed to reduce aggressive driving. Additional goals are data collection on aggressive driving enforcement actions including criminal arrests and drug and alcohol involvement, identification of legislative, prosecutorial or judicial needs and documentation of methods to obtain citizen support for the project.

Citizen Initiative

The Citizens Against Speeding and Aggressive Driving (CASAD) formed in February 1997 in response to the many dangerous driving incidents in the Washington, D.C., region. According to Lisa Sheikh, founder and executive director of CASAD, citizens need "to organize around the problem of speeding and aggressive driving just as they did with drunk driving in the '80s." The group's goals are to slow down traffic, reduce aggressive driving and increase safety on the roads. CASAD plans an approach that includes:

• Increasing public awareness of the dangers of aggressive driving;
• Petitioning local governments for increased resources to support traffic enforcement;
• Studying and making recommendations on traffic calming techniques;
• Strengthening traffic legislation;
• Demanding better education for new drivers; and
• Promoting transportation planning that focuses on safety.

National Road Victim Remembrance Day, held September 5, 1998, brought attention to the victims of speeding, negligent driving, driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, tailgating, improper lane changes, road rage, red light and stop sign violators and truck drivers who fell asleep at the wheel. The event was coordinated by CASAD in cooperation with Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Parents Against Speeding Teens, Parents Against Tired Truckers, and the SafetyNet Resource Center.

Coalition for Consumer Health and Safety Campaign

The Coalition for Consumer Health and Safety (CCHS) has launched a safe and courteous driving campaign that will include nationwide distribution of driving tips and efforts with law enforcement officials to enforce traffic laws. CCHS is a partnership of 40 consumer, health and insurer groups, such as, the Consumer Federation of America. The goal of the campaign is to improve driving safety by increasing driving courtesy. A public opinion survey conducted for CCHS, showed that people believe courteous driving to be safe driving. Participants also felt that drivers in their own area are much less courteous than they were five years ago.

The driving tips are:

• Concentrate on driving, not on passengers, cellular phones, or other distractions.
• Obey speed limits.
• Maintain a safe distance behind vehicles.
• When entering a roadway or changing lanes, allow other drivers to maintain their speed.
• Drive in the right or middle lane and pass on the left.
• Signal several hundred feet before changing lanes or turning.
• Stop at stop signs and red lights; don't run yellow lights.
• Respect pedestrian right of way in cross walks.
• Don't block intersections.
• Use horn sparingly and only to remind other of your presence.

Technological Solutions

Technology offers an enforcement option where human resources may not be sufficient. Cameras at intersections can catch red-light runners and photo radar detects speeding vehicles. Often these violations are characteristic of aggressive driving behavior and may serve as a tool to reduce the problem. The systems automatically photograph the license plate, and sometimes the driver, of the offending vehicle. The ticket is then sent to the owner of the vehicle with a copy of the photograph.

Richard Retting of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety says the most common urban crash occurs as a result of running a red light or stop sign. A study conducted by Retting showed that red-light runners characteristically are young, less likely to wear seat belts and have poor driving records. He sees red-light running as a component of aggressive driving and by increasing enforcement at intersections, aggressive drivers will be deterred.

Many cities across the country have been using the systems with success. In New York City, 230,000 tickets were issued in 18 months with $8 million in fines collected. In Scottsdale, Ariz., collisions in speed camera zones dropped 22 percent during the first half of 1997. Tempe, Ariz., last year put in two photo radar vans and two red-light cameras. Oxnard, Calif., as well as Fort Collins, Colo., report success with their camera radar programs. In Oxnard, red-light violations dropped about 42 percent several months after cameras were introduced last year at intersections, according to a study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Since the program began in Ft. Collins in August 1996, the city has had a reduction in personal injury and overall crashes. Boulder and Denver, Colo., recently have started using photo enforcement to catch speeders. The Denver suburb of Commerce City reported violations dropped 81 percent after camera radar was instituted in 1996. Commerce City suspended camera radar use after a more restrictive state law went into effect in 1997.

Sixteen states and the District of Columbia have legislated in the area of traffic camera radar. This legislation either places restrictions or conditions on the use of camera radar or authorizes cities of a certain size to use it. Colorado's General Assembly passed a law in 1997 limiting the penalties municipalities can impose on speeders caught by photo radar and barring the state's Department of Motor Vehicles from assessing points for violations detected by camera. Colorado's law sets a $40 cap on fines, and requires cities using camera systems to compensate the suppliers based on the value of equipment and services rather than on the number of tickets generated.

Utah's law says traffic camera radar may not be used except in school zones, in areas with posted speed limits of 30 miles per hour or less, when signs are posted on the highway providing notice to a motorist that camera radar may be used, when the citation is accompanied by a photograph of the driver and when a peace officer is present with the photo radar unit. Eastern states adopting camera radar legislation tend to be less restrictive, preferring to stipulate in legislation the size of jurisdictions that can use camera enforcement.

Opponents cite privacy and due process concerns as reasons to prohibit photo monitoring. Some see it as governmental intrusion. Others raise concerns about the lack of personal service of the citation. The logistics of handling an increased caseload in court has also been raised as an issue. "A bad idea whose time has not come" is how Representative Marlin Schneider of Wisconsin describes camera enforcement. Camera enforcement was banned in Wisconsin in 1995 as a result of a Schneider amendment to transportation legislation. "With photo radar you have no right of defense," Schneider says. "It's technology that triggers the ticket."

Supporters such as American Traffic Systems and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety say public opinion in this country supports use of camera enforcement as a way of reducing traffic accidents. A 1995 telephone survey sponsored by the institute found that 66 percent of 1,006 people surveyed favored the use of red-light cameras, compared with 28 percent opposed.

More advanced technologies also are being tested as a means of specifically targeting aggressive driving. The Maryland State Police have implemented the ADVANCE (Aggressive Driver Video and Non-Contact Enforcement) program that uses digital video cameras to record aggressive driving and other violations on the Capital Beltway. They send letters and photos to offending drivers. The effort is coupled with public information campaigns.

Federal Highway Administration Red Light Running Program

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) created the Stop Red Light Running program in 1995, as a community-based safety program. The campaign provided a total of $529,500 in seed money to 31 communities. This campaign raised awareness of the dangers of red light running by 60 percent and reduced crashes in some communities by 43 percent.

In 1998, The Stop Red Light Running program partners worked with the law enforcement community to ensure that consistent, strict enforcement was maintained throughout the year and that all potential causes of a crash are reported and documented. The American Trauma Society and Chrysler Corporation joined the team to create a national mechanism to raise awareness of the dangers of red light running. The partners launched National Stop on Red Week (September 4-11) with a press event and worked with a number of communities around the country to raise awareness of the dangers of running red lights.

Even though federal funding for the Red Light Running program was exhausted in 1995, it has still continued to generate interest, activities, and results. In fact, localities that are interested in starting programs are seeking funding through other sources, such as private industry. In 1998, 50 communities and individuals requested red light running materials from the FHWA

Legislative Initiatives

The issue is how, if at all, to address aggressive driving through state legislation. Some legislators see no reason to introduce new laws; the traffic and criminal laws already on the books cover all aspects of aggressive driving. On the other hand, some legislators see a void in existing law between careless driving and reckless driving where aggressive driving might fit.

In 1997, only two states, Maryland and Virginia, introduced legislation to create specific penalties for aggressive driving offenses. Although none of those bills passed, interest in the issue continued. Nine states introduced a total of 26 bills in 1998 and 15 states introduced 31 bills in 1999. A summary of bills introduced in 2000 can be found at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/ncsl.

In 1998, Arizona was the first state to pass a law creating a specific aggressive driving offense. Nevada and Delaware followed in 1999 and established the offense of aggressive driving.

The Arizona law amends the reckless driving statute by adding the new misdemeanor offense of aggressive driving. It is defined as an event where a driver speeds and commits two or more listed traffic offenses. The other infractions include failing to obey a traffic control device (including a prohibition against driving over the painted "gore" area entering or exiting a highway), driving recklessly, passing a vehicle on the right by traveling off the pavement, changing lanes erratically, following too closely and failing to yield the right of way. The "gore area" provision came about because a law enforcement officer was killed by a motorist crossing over the area.

To qualify as an aggressive driving offense, the person's driving must be an immediate hazard to another person or vehicle. In addition to a fine up to $2,500 and up to six months in jail, the law requires drivers convicted of the offense to attend driver training and education and allows for the suspension of the driver's license for 30 days. If a driver is convicted of a second offense within 24 months, the person is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor and his driver's license will be revoked for one year in addition to other penalties allowed by law.

The Arizona law's sponsor, Representative Jerry Overton says "obviously we have a problem with aggressive drivers out here." He sees more and more of it on the highways every day. But, Overton says the law "is only a tool and it won't be effective unless it's properly enforced."

The Nevada law defines aggressive driving as a driver speeding and committing two or more specific traffic violations in the course of one mile that creates an immediate hazard to another vehicle or person. Aggressive driving is a misdemeanor offense with penalties that include traffic safety courses and possible license suspension. A second offense in two years leads to license revocation.

The offense of aggressive driving in Delaware is based on a combination of unsafe driving behaviors that show a disregard for safety. Drivers convicted of three or more specific traffic offenses resulting from a single incident are guilty of aggressive driving. The law requires offenders to attend behavior modification courses and repeat offenders face license suspensions.

Attacking aggressive driving through driver's education is another approach. This is the area where legislation was successful in Virginia. The Virginia law requires that driver's education courses offered through the schools include instruction about aggressive driving. To implement the new law, the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles sent a letter to teachers of driver's education classes informing them about the requirement to address aggressive driving in their courses. The department developed a two-page summary of aggressive driving issues and is in the process of drafting a more in-depth report about the issue for the driver's education classes. The summary covers the following topics:

• What is aggressive driving?
• Aggressive driving and road rage: are they the same?
• Who are aggressive drivers?
• How can driver's education affect aggressive driving?

New drivers will learn strategies to prevent triggering aggressive driving in themselves and others, how to cope with stress on the road and how to respond when confronted with an aggressive driver.

This is the second success in Virginia with aggressive driving education requirements. Last year, a Virginia bill to require that driver improvement courses for repeat offenders include curriculum about aggressive driving was withdrawn when the Department of Motor Vehicles implemented the curriculum administratively. The Virginia DMV now offers instruction designed to curb aggressive driving behavior and to rehabilitate aggressive drivers. The purpose of the class is to raise the students' awareness of aggressive drivers including how to identify aggressive driving, safely avoid it and report the aggressive driver. Many of the participants in the driver improvement class have multiple traffic violations on their records and may be characterized as aggressive drivers. The course also includes an assessment tool for students to look at their potential for aggressive driving. The assessment is designed to promote discussion and is not a scientific survey.

The National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances (NCUTLO) recently adopted a policy stating that although aggressive driving is a serious problem, new laws are not needed to address it. NCUTLO advocates for the strong and consistent enforcement of existing traffic laws. Where a driver violates multiple traffic laws, they should be charged with each offense. In addition, states with points systems should assess points for every violation.

Conclusion

Recent media reports highlight the growing concern over aggressive driving. Studies show motorists fear this behavior on the road. Mental health professionals are worried about road rage. Aggressive driving has become very real and very deadly in many areas of the country. Safety groups and law enforcement groups have developed programs to target the problem. Legislators have introduced a flurry of bills to combat aggressive drivers and two of those have now become law.

Acknowledgments

Appreciation for providing information and assistance with the report is extended to Joe Ann O'Hara, Richard Compton, Chuck Peltier, Patricia Ellison-Potter, NHTSA; Robert Rowe, International Association of Chiefs of Police; Leon James, University of Hawaii; Richard Retting, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety; Jerry Overton, Arizona State Representative; Joe May, Virginia State Delegate; Richard Rainey, California State Senator; Mark Edwards, American Automobile Association; Lon Anderson, American Automobile Association, Potomac; Gary Zimmerman, Arizona Highway Patrol; Anne McCartt, Institute for Traffic Safety Management and Research. Thanks are also extended to NCSL staff who reviewed and assisted with the report: Jim Reed, Julie Lays, Chris Burnett and Scott Liddell.

References

• Anderson, Lon. Staff Director for Public and Government Relations, American Automobile Association, Potomac. Interview by author. June 23, 1997.
• Boyle, John, Stephen Dienstfrey and Alyson Sothoron. Nationwide Survey Regarding Speeding and Other Unsafe Driving Actions. Study conducted by Schulman, Ronca & Bucuvalas, Inc. for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, September 15, 1998.
• Cotton, Ray. Commander, Maryland State Police Department. Interview by author. June 20, 1997.
• Edwards, Mark. "AAA Study on Aggressive Driving." Presentation given at the California NETS Aggressive Driving and Road Rage Conference, Los Angeles, Calif., October 19, 1998.
• Glazer, Sarah. "Aggressive Driving." The CQ Researcher 7, no. 28 (July 25, 1997).
• Green, Bob. "Putting Road Rage Perpetrators on the Couch." Chicago Tribune. December 3, 1996.
• James, Leon. Professor, University of Hawaii. Interview by author. April 17, 1997.
• Lacey, John W. and Connie H. Wiliszowski. Final Report: Aggressive Driving Focus Groups with Legal and Adjudication Staff. Prepared for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, December 3, 1998.
• Larson, John A. "Lessons Learned From Treating Highway 'Vigilantes.'" Presentation at the New York State Aggressive Driving Symposium, Albany, New York, May 1998.
• Larson, John A. Steering Clear of Highway Madness. Wilsonville, Ore.: BookPartners, Inc., 1996.
• May, Joe. Virginia State Delegate. Interview by author. June 24, 1997 and June 1998.
• McCartt, Anne T., et al. Spring 1998 Telephone Survey of New York State Licensed Drivers, Volume 1: Highway Safety Issues. Albany, N.Y.: Institute for Traffic Safety Management and Research and Fact Finders, Inc., 1998.
• McCartt, Anne. "Attitudes and Self-reported Behaviors of New York State Motorists Regarding Aggressive Driving: Preliminary Results." Presentation at the New York State Aggressive Driving Symposium, Albany, N.Y., May 1998.
• Nerenberg, Arnold P. "Road Rage Disorder, A New Diagnosis." Whittier, Calif. 1997.
• Rainey, Richard. California State Senator. Interview by author. April 23, 1997.
• Retting, Richard. Senior Transportation Engineer, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Interview by author. June 25, 1997.
• Retting, Richard. "Characteristics of Red Light Violators: Results of a Field Investigation." Journal of Safety Research 27, no. 1 (1996): 9-15.
• "Road Rage." Status Report (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) 33, no. 10(December 5, 1998): 1-6.
• Sheikh, Lisa. Citizens Against Speeding and Aggressive Driving. Statement before the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Surface Transportation Subcommittee. Washington, D.C., July 17, 1997.
• U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Capital Beltway Update: Beltway User Focus Groups. World Wide Web, http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov:80/people/injury/research/aggressive/final.rpt
• _______. "Remarks Prepared for Delivery, Secretary of Transportation Rodney E. Slater, Announcement of 'Smooth Operator'." Press Release. Alexandria, Va. April 29, 1997.
• Vaughan, Kevin and Ann Carnahan. "State Patrol Tickets Are all the Rage." The Rocky Mountain News. January 4, 1999.
• Zimmerman, Gary. Lieutenant, Arizona Highway Patrol. Interview by author. July 3, 1997.
• Zimmerman, Gary. "Arizona's Aggressive Driving Program." Presentation to the California NETS Aggressive Driving and Road Rage Conference, Los Angeles, Calif., October 19, 1998.

World Wide Web Sites

• AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety
• Aggressive Driving: Research and Resources
• American Institute for Public Safety
• Citizens Against Speeding and Aggressive Driving (CASAD)
• "Dr. Driving" (Professor Leon James)
• Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, "Road Rage: Causes and Dangers of Aggressive Driving"
• U.S Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Contacts for More Information:

• Jan Goehring
  National Conference of State Legislatures
  1560 Broadway, Suite 700
  Denver, Colo. 80202
  (303) 364-7700
• JoAnn O'Hara
  National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
  400 Seventh Street, SW
  Washington, D.C. 20590
  (202) 366-2723
• Mark Edwards
  American Automobile Association
  1000 AAA Drive
  Heathrow, Fla. 32746-5063
  (407) 444-7909
• Richard Retting
  Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
  1005 North Glebe Road, Suite 800
  Arlington, VA 22201
  (703) 247-1500
• Leon James
  University of Hawaii
  Gartley Hall 213A
  2430 Dole St.
  Honolulu, HI 96822
  http://www.aloha.net/~dyc
• John Archer
  National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances
  (703) 978-0547

Appendix A

George Washington Parkway Crash - Narkey K. Terry Conviction:

The lead charge in the case was involuntary manslaughter, tried under 18 U.S.C. 1112 and 18 U.S.C. 2. He was found guilty and sentenced to 60 months, 3 years suspended release.

Count 2 was involuntary manslaughter, tried under 18 U.S.C..1112 and 18 U.S.C. 2. He was found guilty and sentenced to 60 months consecutive.

Count 3 was tried under 18 U.S.C. 13, an encompassing statute that allows for inclusion of state laws. The Virginia reckless driving statute was applied. He was convicted and sentenced to 12 months concurrent on this charge.

The defendant plead guilty to the 4th count, carrying a concealed weapon under Virginia state law. Again it was encompassed under the federal statute 18 U.S.C. 13.

The sentence totals 10 1/2 years. The case is on appeal (case no. 96-49-19).

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Visitor counts for this page.