• 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

Taming the Road Warrior: Can Aggressive Driving be Curbed?

14-Page Document

September 1997

Transportation Series No. 7

By Janet B. Goehring

Contents

Summary
Introduction
The Growing Problem
The Psychology of Aggressive Driving
Attempts to Reduce Aggressive Driving
Options for State Legislatures
Conclusion
References
Appendix

Summary

Dangerous driving behaviors are becoming more common on crowded roads and causing concern for citizens, safety advocates, law enforcement and policymakers. This phenomenon, known as aggressive driving-or road rage, in its most extreme form-presents a challenge to state legislators who are worried about traffic safety. Recent surveys show that drivers in some areas fear aggressive drivers more than drunk drivers. And the number of incidents of aggressive driving continues to increase every year.

This report presents an overview of aggressive driving, the ways it can be defined and several approaches to the problem. Psychologists and mental health professionals suggest a number of causes of the behavior as well as solutions. Law enforcement efforts seek to target aggressive drivers and strictly enforce traffic violations with positive results. Citizens groups are forming to call for education, awareness and answers to the issue.

State legislators in Maryland and Virginia this year grappled with bills aimed at curbing aggressive drivers. These states considered the creation of a specific offense of aggressive driving to supplement careless driving and reckless driving charges. Several options for state legislators to consider in dealing with dangerous driving are discussed, including the application of advanced technologies to heighten enforcement, driver education and graduated licensing for teenagers. The report is intended to assist state legislators in developing policy solutions to this vexing traffic safety issue.

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 increasingly fearful of the threat of violence on the highways, and evidence indicates these incidents are occurring with greater frequency. Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater stated that "Aggressive driving is a combination of unsafe and unlawful driving actions that demonstrate a disregard for safety. A car in the hands of an aggressive driver has the same effect as a gun in the hands of a murderer....But we cannot and will not tolerate mayhem on wheels."

Road rage, as extreme aggressive driving is sometimes called, has become a greater worry than drunk drivers for many people. Growing concerns about these drivers and the hazards they create on the roads has lead to a flurry of activity by safety groups, law enforcement, mental health professionals and legislatures. National news media have extensively reported on the phenomenon. One challenge is finding a specific definition of what constitutes aggressive driving. Some groups see it as an intentional act, while others describe it as acting without regard for the safety of others.

Policymakers who want to ensure the safety of the driving public and reduce the toll taken by dangerous drivers face a number of options in dealing with the problem. This report examines the problem of dangerous drivers, definitions of aggressive driving, the psychological theories about this behavior, current programs that seek to curb road rage and policy options for state legislatures.

The Growing Problem

Recent surveys point to an epidemic of aggressive driving and the problem is increasing. Mark Edwards of the American Automobile Association (AAA) says that aggressive driving "is on the rise and will continue to rise." According to an 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 a result of the 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 AAA Potomac office in the Washington, D.C., area conducted a survey of its members in 1997 and found that motorists named aggressive driving as their top concern. The survey showed that drivers fear an 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 on Washington, D.C., area roads.

Motorists see aggressive driving behavior 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 of three people surveyed 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.

Some researchers believe the increase in dangerous driving behavior relates to the setting of the national maximum speed limit at 55 mph in the mid-1970s. Many of the nation's highways are designed to handle speeds of 70 mph or more. As drivers found it difficult to hold to the lower highway speeds, unwritten rules developed. For example, many felt it was permissible to travel up to 10 mph over the speed limit without getting a ticket. Radar detectors became popular. Strict enforcement of the speed limit declined and motorists developed the perception that they could get away with speeding. During the same time span, crime increased and pulled officers from traffic enforcement to other duties. According to Professor John Palmer of St. Cloud State University in Minnesota, this created a situation where drivers did not have a "sense of oversight" while on the roads. Just as drivers in past decades rarely saw speed limits enforced, motorists today rarely see anyone caught for egregious driving behavior. They come to believe they can get away with it.

The Psychology of Aggressive Driving

Psychologists who examine the phenomenon of aggressive driving see anger as the root of the problem. California psychologist Arnold Nerenberg considers road rage to be a psychological condition and has developed a new diagnosis called "road rage disorder." He defines road rage as a "driver reacting with anger at another driver; the anger is expressed overtly and communicated to the other." Road rage is dangerous to the individual expressing it and is dangerous because of potential retaliation. Nerenberg also sees a familial connection to the disorder. A child who sees a parent demonstrate road rage can be predisposed to later develop the same behaviors.

• 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 at 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.

Nerenberg finds it important to label road rage as a mental disorder because he feels that will be a deterrent. Most people fear the stigma of being labeled with a psychological disorder. To address road rage disorder, Nerenberg recommends therapy that teaches alternative reactions. He includes therapy sessions in the car while the patient is driving. Other suggestions to curb the problem include making all forms of road rage behavior illegal and increasing insurance rates.

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 program includes manuals, videos and workshops. 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.

"Aggressive driving is not extreme any more; it has become a cultural norm on the highway," says traffic psychology Professor Leon James. He sees 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 road rage includes yelling, gesturing, honking and insulting. Quiet road rage involves complaining, rushing, resisting and competing. Finally, epic road rage involves cutting off drivers, 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 drivers' 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 emotions-based driver's education in elementary school. He says the classes need to reach children before they learn an attitude of disrespect on the roads. It is a matter of developing the emotional fitness to start driving as a teenager.

Attempts to Reduce Aggressive Driving

With the growing attention to aggressive driving and the severity of recent incidents, many groups have joined to address the problem. Law enforcement agencies across the country are developing programs to make the roads safer. Driver safety groups and educators are examining the problem. And state legislatures have started to introduce bills that deal expressly with aggressive driving. The following section discusses some examples of these programs.

Law Enforcement Efforts

Smooth Operator

A coalition of 14 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 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. The first enforcement wave occurred April 28-May 4, 1997, and the second wave started June 16. During the first wave, 11,835 vehicles were stopped and 11,927 summons were issued. Table 1 lists the number and kinds of citations issued during the effort.

Table 1-Smooth Operator First Wave Results

Source: Smooth Operator Program, 1997

The second wave of Smooth Operator occurred June 16-22. Almost 16,000 vehicles were stopped with 15,134 summons issued, resulting in 285 criminal arrests. Table 2 lists the results.

Table 2-Smooth Operator Second Wave Results

Source: Smooth Operator Program, 1997

More than 28,000 enforcement contacts were made during the two waves. The dominant offense proved to be speeding or speed-related offenses. 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 provision 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.

According to Major Ray Cotton of the Maryland State Police, Smooth Operator has had other benefits in addition to raising awareness of aggressive driving. He indicated that intense "traffic enforcement leads to crime suppression." During the first enforcement wave, officers arrested 204 fugitives. Numerous arrests related to drugs, guns and contraband also occurred. Major Cotton also stressed that incidents involving assaults, weapons or shootings no longer are considered traffic matters. The behavior has escalated into a criminal offense.

The Arizona Highway Patrol and the Governor's Safety Office teamed together two years ago to start an enforcement effort targeted at aggressive drivers. Patrol officers in unmarked vehicles travel the roads specifically looking for egregious driving behavior such as speeding 20 mph to 30 mph over the limit, erratic lane changes and tailgating. The patrol uses 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 offending drivers, in that no warnings are given. Everyone pulled over under 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 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 difficult 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."

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is initiating a program to address aggressive driving. NHTSA provided funds for the Smooth Operator project. The agency is planning an education and awareness campaign. Materials in recent Campaign Safe and Sober publications describe the characteristics of an aggressive driver and give tips on what to do when confronted with this problem. The campaign seeks to reduce traffic fatalities and increase seat belt use through public information and education, enforcement and legislative efforts. The materials also include a self-test for drivers to determine if they are aggressive. Radio public service announcements and print ads also are being developed.

Another NHTSA effort is a demonstration project on aggressive driving enforcement. The purpose will be to identify effective and innovative enforcement techniques, examine applications of technology and evaluate legislative and justice systems needs. NHTSA plans to award a contract to a highly congested metropolitan area to study the problem. Results will be made available nationally.

Citizen Initiative

The Citizens Against Speeding and Aggressive Driving (CASAD) group 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.

The Safety Council of the Ozarks uses a driver education curriculum that includes a focus on aggressive driving. The program was developed by the National Safety Council and is an extension of the defensive driving curriculum. A number of states use the curriculum. The program addresses attitudes and behaviors, choices and consequences on the roads, control and responsibility. It includes discussions of how drivers react to situations and how to deal with others who may be driving aggressively. Participants in the program are generally court-referred because they have received several tickets in a short period of time or multiple charges for one incident.

Julie Hinton, director of the safety council, finds that fewer drivers come back through the program than those who took just the defensive driving course. The curriculum appears to be very effective. She says that "for most people, increased awareness will make a difference." For the few others, the course does not have a lasting effect and, to change their behavior, the consequences have to become more painful, such as high fines and jail sentences.

Legislative Initiatives

Two states, Virginia and Maryland, this year examined legislation aimed at aggressive drivers. The bills introduced in these states attempted to define and alleviate the problem.

In Virginia, Delegate Joe May introduced two bills in 1997 that addressed aggressive driving. The first bill called for driver improvement clinics to add curriculum on aggressive driving. The second bill established an aggravated reckless driving offense and penalties for aggressive driving.

House Bill 2125 added aggressive driving to the driver improvement curriculum. The bill stated, "Clinic curricula shall include elements designed to curb aggressive driving and to rehabilitate aggressive drivers." The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) is responsible for these clinics that help remediate those drivers who have a certain number of points assessed against their license. When DMV learned of the bill, it agreed to implement the new curriculum administratively, without legislation. The bill died but the goal was achieved.

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 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 examine their potential for aggressive driving. The assessment, designed to promote discussion, is not a scientific survey.

House Bill 2592 added a section specifically related to the offense of aggressive driving and the penalties to be imposed for a conviction. The bill allowed the judge to convict a driver charged with reckless driving with the more serious offense of aggressive driving. The bill described aggravating factors that elevated the level of the offense, including actions that cause intentional danger to life, limb and property. (See appendix for the full text of the bill.) Delegate May drafted this language because he sees aggressive driving as a "deliberate act to place someone in danger." The bill also imposed fines and penalties, including a mandatory minimum sentence of 48 hours in jail. The bill failed in the judiciary committee upon a determination that it was unconstitutional.

Delegate May indicated that almost everyone in the legislature agrees that aggressive driving is a problem of increasing magnitude. The behavior is difficult to define and more difficult to prosecute. These bills were a first step to addressing the problem and May predicts similar bills will be introduced next year. He added that it may take "many approaches to tackle the problem."

In Maryland, Delegate Timothy Murphy introduced H.B. 567, which established the offense of aggressive driving. The bill stated, "An individual is guilty of aggressive driving if the individual drives a motor vehicle in a belligerent, contentious, or antagonistic manner that endangers the safety of persons or property." Violators would have been subject to a fine of up to $500 and/or imprisonment for up to two months. The bill also would have assessed five points against the violator's driving record. The bill died in the judiciary committee.

Murphy introduced the bill because he believed there was a void in existing law and that the traffic code did not address aggressive driving. The level of intent for reckless driving, wanton disregard, is difficult to prove in court and many cases might be lost. The negligent driving charge, he believes, is "too soft" to address the seriousness of aggressive driving behavior. Therefore, he introduced a specific aggressive driving charge that fell between the other two offenses. Murphy plans to reintroduce a similar bill next year.

House Bill 1033, sponsored by Delegate David Rudolph, imposed an assessment of eight points against a driver's record when a driver is convicted of three or more moving violations arising from a single traffic incident. The bill responded to concerns raised about the deteriorating and dangerous behavior of drivers. Under current Maryland law, if a driver is charged with multiple offenses, he can be convicted and penalized only for the most serious offense. This bill sought to solve the problem of drivers committing several offenses and being convicted on only one. Often, aggressive driving incidents involve a series of infractions such as speeding, following too closely and illegal lane changes. This bill addresses the combination of offenses and makes the fines and penalties cumulative.

Delegate Rudolph consulted with Maryland state police when drafting the bill to establish a list of single offenses that often combine in an aggressive driving incident. The law enforcement community supported the bill. Some concerns were raised in committee sessions that police might use the law to increase the charges against a driver in a situation that may not merit such serious treatment. Delegate Rudolph withdrew the bill this session because he believed it was too late in the session and the timing was not right. The Maryland General Assembly already had dealt with many traffic safety bills this year. Rudolph plans to meet with law enforcement officials and other legislators to prepare the bill for submission next year.

Delegate Barrie Ciliberti took an innovative approach to the problem of aggressive drivers and convened a conference on the issue in May 1997. The meeting brought together traffic safety experts, law enforcement officials and politicians to discuss the issues and raise awareness of the problem. Ciliberti prefers to call the dangerous driving behavior "deadly driving." He feels that aggressive driving sometimes can be good and the problem that needs to be addressed is deadly driving behavior. Ciliberti sees the conference as a first step. The next steps include meetings with the media to encourage more coverage of the issue to raise citizen consciousness and to increase use of the cellular phone #77 reporting number. Ciliberti plans to examine existing legislation to see if it covers deadly driving behavior. Finally, he may hold another conference to continue the work begun in May. Continuing momentum on holding conferences, raising awareness, defining the problem and letting people know they cannot get away with aggressive driving are his goals.

Options for State Legislatures

Aggressive driving incidents can occur at any time and any place. The severity of the problem, however, varies from state to state. The threshold issue to examine is the depth of the problem in each state and to determine whether action is needed. Safety groups and law enforcement officials are invaluable resources for evaluating the seriousness of aggressive driving.

Studies show that aggressive driving continues to increase in many areas, as do the worries of motorists. These driving incidents have proven deadly in many cases, and curbing the aggressive driver has become a vexing problem for safety advocates, law enforcement officials and legislators. Many options are available to policy makers who see road rage as an issue in their area and who are examining ways to curb aggressive driving.

Examine Existing Laws

All states have laws that address traffic safety and this legislation may be sufficient to address the problem. Commonly, these laws cover illegal lane changes, speeding, running red lights and following too closely-many of the actions identified as aggressive driving behavior. Reckless, negligent and careless driving offenses also incorporate aggressive driving behaviors. The first step for policymakers is to examine existing laws to determine if they fully address aggressive driving incidents. California Senator Richard Rainey believes existing laws cover aggressive driving behaviors and that new laws are not necessary.

For example, the state of Washington has a strong reckless driving statute. It states that "Any person who drives any vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving." Case law interpretation of the statute defines "reckless" as driving in a rash or heedless manner, indifferent to the consequences. The definitions incorporate most descriptions of aggressive driving and provide a way to prosecute the behavior. The law also imposes imprisonment of not more than one year and a fine not to exceed $5,000. A conviction for reckless driving leads to suspension of a driver's license for 30 days. The penalties make the law a significant deterrent.

The level of intent, willful and wanton, often presents an obstacle to proving the case in court. A lesser offense may be more appropriate to answer to the aggressive driving behavior and ensure convictions in court. On the other hand, some states may consider aggressive driving to be so severe that the offense requires an element of direct intent and amounts to a more serious offense than reckless driving. That was the goal of the aggressive driving bill introduced in Virginia this year.

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 more focused.

Mark Edwards of AAA says, "How you define aggressive driving determines its characteristics and how big it is." He lists several elements of aggressive driving, including speeding, cutting others off, threatening or gesturing, tailgating and weapons. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration defines aggressive driving as "The operation of a motor vehicle in such a manner as to endanger or be likely to endanger any persons or property." Other definitions have been discussed in this report. In defining the actions, states should be careful to craft the language so that it is not overly vague and subject to attack in court.

In those states with severe aggressive driving problems, or in those without sufficient laws to address the behavior, a specific aggressive driving offense may need to be created. Virginia and Maryland both introduced legislation of this kind in 1997. The bill introduced in Virginia defined aggressive driving as an aggravated reckless driving offense. Such legislation would need to clearly define the behavior that constitutes the offense. It also would need to include fines and penalties to be imposed.

Increase penalties

If the state finds that the traffic infraction laws cover the behaviors associated with aggressive driving, the next question is whether the fines and penalties create a sufficient deterrent. When states recognized that driving under the influence caused deadly crashes and was a dangerous offense, the penalties associated with the action increased. Aggressive driving has proven fatal as well, and needs to be examined as seriously.

As previously discussed, Maryland law does not allow enhanced penalties for multiple traffic offenses arising from a single incident. Bills introduced this session attempted to address this problem by increasing the points and fines assessed for multiple infractions. Lon Anderson, AAA Potomac, says states need a "bigger bat" to go after aggressive drivers. Additional penalty points assessed against a driver's license and high fines are one way to attack the issue. Revocation or suspension of licenses is also an option. A bill introduced in California this year sought to increase the fine for running a red light from $104 to $270. Maryland Delegate Ciliberti also introduced legislation to increase the fines for traffic offenses to target aggressive drivers. The penalties provided in legislation allow law enforcement officials and judges to treat the behavior seriously. The consequences for aggressive driving need to be sufficient to create some deterrent.

Allow Witness Complaints

One concern raised by motorists is that they observe aggressive driving when no police officer is available. Enacting legislation to allow a citation to be issued based upon a citizen complaint, rather than the personal observations of the officer, would empower safe drivers and assist law enforcement efforts. Setting out requirements for the information needed to substantiate a citation would help ensure the accuracy of the reports and discourage frivolous or malicious witness reports. The Smooth Operator program used the #77 cellular phone number to take reports from motorists about aggressive drivers. Encouraging a similar technology in each state would facilitate citizen reports.

Increase Enforcement

The Smooth Operator program and Arizona enforcement efforts demonstrate the effectiveness of increasing police enforcement. State legislatures may want to examine such programs and determine how to support them. Funding for more officers, prosecutors and court personnel needs to be considered to support all-out enforcement of aggressive driving violations.

Photo Enforcement

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) suggests using cameras at intersections to catch red light runners. Richard Retting of IIHS 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 were younger, less likely to wear seat belts and had poorer driving records than those who did not run red lights at the same intersection. He sees this offense as a component of aggressive driving and feels that, by increasing enforcement at intersections, aggressive drivers will be deterred.

The cameras automatically photograph the rear license plates of cars that run red lights. The camera is timed to identify vehicles with drivers that intentionally run the light, not those that enter on yellow and are caught in the middle when the light turns red. The ticket is then sent to the owner of the vehicle with a copy of the photograph. Virginia and Maryland have enacted legislation to allow localities to set up photo-monitoring programs. Fairfax City, Va., just started a one-year camera enforcement pilot program. The tickets carry a $50 fine. 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. Photo enforcement also can be used to detect speeding. In addition, the Maryland State Police is developing new photo imaging technology to respond to aggressive driving behavior. When implemented, this technology will capture aggressive driving actions as they occur. This effort will be accompanied by a strong public information and education campaign.

Opponents of camera enforcement cite privacy and due process as reasons to prohibit the 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 case load also has been raised. The Colorado legislature listened to these arguments and voted in 1997 to restrict the use of camera enforcement. The law allows the state, county or municipality to use "photo-radar" if the defendant is personally served or waives personal service of the summons. It prohibits the assessment of points against a driver's license for offenses detected through camera enforcement and limits fines.

The use of cameras provides an enforcement option when manpower may not be sufficient. The nature of the technology targets some forms of aggressive driving behavior-speeding and running red lights. Although used as an effective tool in many jurisdictions, the system is not without concerns, as examined in Colorado.

Graduated Licensing

Graduated licensing targets teenagers who are just learning to drive and allows them to acquire more on-the-road experience in lower-risk settings. Teenage drivers lack the driving experience to safely react to traffic situations and commonly engage in more risk-taking behaviors, thereby exposing themselves to dangers on the road. Graduated licensing requires young drivers to demonstrate responsible driving behavior through three phases of licensing-learner's permit, intermediate or provisional license, and full license.

During the permit stage, which might occur at age 15 or 16, young drivers must be supervised by an adult, pass a driver's education course and remain conviction-free to move to the next level. To specifically address aggressive driving, the education courses should include information about the problem and how to avoid becoming a perpetrator or victim of road rage. The provisional or intermediate license includes an on-road test and a requirement to remain ticket-free for the license period. Other restrictions might apply, such as more supervised driving and a prohibition against late-night driving. Full licensing occurs after the successful completion of the first two stages and includes the zero-tolerance alcohol law. More than 20 states now have some form of graduated licensing.

Mandate Driver's Education

Psychologists, mental health professionals and safety advocates recognize the value of education in addressing and changing angry driving behavior. A driver's education program that includes elements of anger management and training about road rage may prove to be helpful in alleviating aggressive driving. Policymakers may want to evaluate whether to mandate such education; it could become a requirement for obtaining a driver's license. Or, the education program could be mandated for people with varying degrees of traffic violations. The suggestions of Dr. Leon James to introduce courteous driving education in elementary school also offers a unique option. The financial burden of requiring these courses presents difficulty for their implementation.

Become Involved in the Issue

Legislators who are concerned about angry drivers could take the approach of Maryland Delegate Ciliberti and become involved in raising awareness of the issue. Speaking out about the problem and supporting innovative efforts to reduce aggressive driving are ways to build momentum for reducing deadly incidents on the roads.

Conclusion

Recent media reports highlight the growing concern about aggressive driving. Studies show that motorists fear this behavior on the road. Mental health professionals are worried about road rage. Aggressive driving has become a real and deadly threat in many areas of the country. Safety and law enforcement groups have developed programs to target the problem. Legislators have introduced bills to combat aggressive drivers. Although the proposed bills did not pass, the action has encouraged enforcement and increased the visibility of the issue. Policymakers who want to find ways to curb road rage have a variety of options to consider. Adjusting traffic laws to target these drivers and increasing fines and penalties are one option. Funding for education and enforcement is another. State legislatures play a key role in ensuring the safety of the roads and are in a unique position to address the worries and fears about aggressive drivers in each state.

References

Adler, Jerry. "Road Rage: We're Driven to Destruction." Newsweek. June 2, 1997.

Aggressive Driving Conference. Proceedings and Testimony. Bethesda, Md., May 16, 1997.

Anderson, Lon. Staff Director for Public and Government Relations, American Automobile Association, Potomac. Interview by author. June 23, 1997.

Ciliberti, Barrie. Maryland State Delegate. Interview by author. July 14, 1997.

Cook, William J. "Mad Drivers Disease." U.S. News and World Report. November 11, 1996.

Cotton, Ray. Commander, Maryland State Police Department. Interview by author. June 20, 1997.

Edwards, Mark. "Aggressive Driving." Presentation given at the Colorado Safety and Preven tion Conference, Breckenridge, Colo., May 1, 1997.

Glazer, Sarah. "Aggressive Driving." The CQ Researcher 7, No. 28 (July 25, 1997).

Green, Bob. "Putting Road Rage Perpetrators on the Couch." Chicago Tribune. Dec. 3, 1996.

Hinton, Julie. Director, Safety Council of the Ozarks. Interview by author. June 26, 1997.

James, Leon. Professor, University of Hawaii. Interview by author. April 17, 1997.

May, Joe. Virginia State Delegate. Interview by author. June 24, 1997.

Meadow, James B. "Road Rage." Rocky Mountain News. March 3, 1997.

Murphy, Timothy. Interview by author. July 1, 1997.

Nerenberg, Arnold P. "Road Rage Disorder, A New Diagnosis." Whittier, Calif. 1997.

John Palmer. Director, Minnesota Highway Safety Center, St. Cloud State University. Inter view by author. June 26, 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.

Rudolph, David. Maryland State Delegate. Interview by author. June 26, 1997.

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.

Vest, Jason, Warren Cohen and Mike Tharp. "Road Rage." U.S. News and World Report. June 2, 1997.

U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. "Re marks Prepared for Delivery, Secretary of Transportation Rodney E. Slater, Announce ment of 'Smooth Operator'." Press Release. Alexandria, Va., April 29, 1997.

__________. "Slater Announces $100,000 Grant to Combat D.C. Area Aggressive Driving." Press Release. Washington, D.C., April 29, 1997.

Zimmerman, Gary. Lieutenant, Arizona Highway Patrol. Interview by author. July 3, 1997.

World Wide Web Sites:

• AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, Http://www.webfirst.com/aaa/text/roadrage.htm
• "Dr. Driving" (Professor Leon James), Http://www.aloha.net/~dyc
• Motoring Update, Http://www.theaa.co.uk/theaa/u40.htm
• "Red Light Runner Project," Http://www.clearlake.ibm.com/Alliance/clusters/
• am/pprisafe0.nyn.html
• Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, "Road Rage: Causes and Dangers of Aggressive Driving," Http://www.house.gov/transportation/surface/sthearin/ist717/ist717.htm
• U.S Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov

Contacts for More Information:

Appendix. Virginia House Bill 2592

Aggressive driving; penalty

Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this article, upon the trial of any person charged with reckless driving where the degree of culpability is high, the court in its discretion may find the accused not guilty of reckless driving, but guilty of aggressive driving if any one of the following aggravating factors is present:

Operating a motor vehicle on the highways of the Commonwealth with a willful and wanton disregard for the life, limb, or property of another person.

Operating a motor vehicle on the highways of the Commonwealth and pointing or brandishing a firearm, or any object similar in appearance to a firearm, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another. For purposes of this section, "firearm" means any weapon in which ammunition may be used or discharged by explosion or pneumatic pressure, and "ammunition" means a cartridge, pellet, ball, missile or projectile adapted for use in a firearm.

Operating a motor vehicle on the highways of the Commonwealth in a threatening or intimidating manner with the intent to cause other motorists to lose control of their motor vehicle or to cause other motorists to be forced off the highway surface.

B. Aggressive driving shall be punishable by a fine of not less than $200 nor more than $2,500 and by confinement in jail for not less than one month nor more than one year. Forty-eight hours of such confinement shall be a mandatory, minimum sentence not subject to suspension by the court.

THE TRANSPORTATION SERIES

"Intelligent Transportation in America: Prospects and Perils" January 1996
(No. 1)

"High Speed Trains for the United States? History and Options" March 1996
(No. 2)

"The State Role in Spent Fuel Transportation Safety" May 1996
(No. 3)

"Hybrid Electric Vehicles: Options for State Policymakers" July 1996
(No. 4)

"Reducing Crashes, Casualties and Costs: February 1997
Traffic Safety Challenges for State Legislatures" (No. 5)

"Linking Technologies for Commercial Vehicle Operations: June 1997
What Will the Future Hold?"
(No. 6)

"Taming The Road Warrior: September 1997
an Aggressive Driving be Curbed?"
(No. 7)

THE TRANSPORTATION SERIES is published four times a year. The series examines compelling transportation policy issues that challenge state policymakers. It is distributed without charge to state transportation committee chairs, the NCSL Executive Committee, legislative librarians and others. Annual subscriptions are available for $35; individual copies are $10. For further information or to obtain copies, contact the NCSL Book Order Department in Denver at (303) 830-2054.

©1997 by the National Conference of State Legislatures.

ISSN-1086-8658

Ordering Information

Visitor counts for this page.