Coping with aggressive driving : driver accounts of how they manage themselves and others to reduce conflict on the road

Dealing with the aggression of other drivers on the road is an important skill given that driving is a common activity for adults in highly motorised countries. Even though incidents of extreme aggression on the road (such as assault) are reportedly rare, milder forms, some of them dangerous (such as tailgating or deliberately following too closely) are apparently common, and may be increasing. At the very least, this is likely to render the driving environment more stressful, and at worst elevates the risk of crashing by increasing both the level of risky driving behaviours and the likelihood of responses that escalate the situation. Thus the need for drivers to manage incidents of conflict is likely to become increasingly important. However, little research examines how drivers manage their own or others’ aggressive driving behaviour. Recently greater attention has been paid to driver cognitions, especially the attributions that drivers make about other drivers, that then might influence their own driving responses, particularly aggressive or risky ones. The study reported below was the first in a larger exploration of aggressive driving that focussed on driver cognitions, emotions and underlying motivations for aggressive behaviours on the road. Qualitative, in-depth interviews of drivers (n = 30, aged 18-49 years) were subjected to thematic analysis to investigate driver experiences with aggressive driving. Two main themes were identified from these accounts: driver management of self; and driver attempts to influence or manage other drivers. This paper describes the subthemes falling under the management of self main theme. These subthemes were labelled ‘being magnanimous’, ‘chilling out’, ‘slowing down’, and ‘apology/acknowledgment’. ‘Being magnanimous’ referred to situations where the respondent perceived him/herself to be a recipient of another’s aggressive driving and made a deliberate choice not to respond. However, a characteristic of this sub-theme was that this choice was underpinned by the adoption of morally superior stance, or sense of magnanimity. ‘Chilling out’ was a more general response to both the milder aggressive behaviours of other drivers and the general frustrations of driving. ‘Slowing down’ referred to reducing one’s speed in response to the perceived aggressive driving, often tailgating, of another. This subtheme appeared to consist of two separate underlying motivations. One of these was a genuine concern for one’s own safety while the other was more aimed at “getting back” at the other driver. ‘Apology’ referred to how drivers modified their more negative reactions and responses when another driver made gestures that acknowledged their having made a mistake, indicated an apology, or acknowledged the recipient driver. These sub-themes are discussed in relation to their implications for understanding aggressive driving and intervening to reduce it.

Connection without caution? The role of mobile phone involvement in predicting young people’s intentions to use a mobile phone while driving

The present study examined the predictors of the intentions of young people aged between 17 and 24 years (N = 196) to use their mobile phone while driving. Using convenience sampling, drivers were recruited at petrol station travel centres to complete a cross-sectional survey. The Theory of Planned Behaviour constructs of attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioural control (PBC) were measured, as well as mobile phone involvement - a construct based on behavioural addiction components to reflect people’s cognitive and behavioural interaction with their mobile phone. Attitudes, PBC, and mobile phone involvement predicted young people’s intentions to use their mobile phone while driving, highlighting the need for interventions to address the perceived rewards and costs of the behaviour and to challenge the potentially powerful need to be constantly connected with others by technology irrespective of the associated dangers.

Integrating driving and traffic simulators to study railway level crossing safety interventions : a methodology

Safety at Railway Level Crossings (RLXs) is an important issue within the Australian transport system. Crashes at RLXs involving road vehicles in Australia are estimated to cost $10 million each year. Such crashes are mainly due to human factors; unintentional errors contribute to 46% of all fatal collisions and are far more common than deliberate violations. This suggests that innovative intervention targeting drivers are particularly promising to improve RLX safety. In recent years there has been a rapid development of a variety of affordable technologies which can be used to increase driver’s risk awareness around crossings. To date, no research has evaluated the potential effects of such technologies at RLXs in terms of safety, traffic and acceptance of the technology. Integrating driving and traffic simulations is a safe and affordable approach for evaluating these effects. This methodology will be implemented in a driving simulator, where we recreated realistic driving scenario with typical road environments and realistic traffic. This paper presents a methodology for evaluating comprehensively potential benefits and negative effects of such interventions: this methodology evaluates driver awareness at RLXs , driver distraction and workload when using the technology . Subjective assessment on perceived usefulness and ease of use of the technology is obtained from standard questionnaires. Driving simulation will provide a model of driving behaviour at RLXs which will be used to estimate the effects of such new technology on a road network featuring RLX for different market penetrations using a traffic simulation. This methodology can assist in evaluating future safety interventions at RLXs.

Revised reinforcement sensitivity theory : the impact of FFFS and stress on driving

This study investigated the effect of a fear-based personality trait, as conceptualised in Gray’s revised reinforcement sensitivity theory (RST) by the strength of the fight/flight/freeze system (FFFS), on young people’s driving simulator performance under induced psychosocial stress. Seventy-one young drivers completed the Jackson-5 questionnaire of RST traits, followed by a psychosocial stress or relaxation induction procedure (random allocation to groups) and then a city driving simulator task. Some support was found for the hypothesis that higher FFFS sensitivity would result in poorer driving performance under stress, in terms of significantly poorer hazard responses, possibly due to an increased attentional focus on the aversive cues inherent in the stress induction leaving reduced attentional capacity for the driving task. These results suggest that stress may lead to riskier driving behaviour in individuals with fearful RST personality styles.

Do drivers respond emotionally and behaviourally differently to an intentionally anger provoking driving situation than to an ambiguous, but potentially provocative, one? Results of a self-report survey.

Aggressive driving is considered an important road-safety concern for drivers in highly motorised countries. However, understanding of the causes and maintenance factors fundamental to aggressive driving is limited. In keeping with theoretical advances from general aggression research such as the General Aggression Model (GAM), research has begun to examine the emotional and cognitive antecedents of aggressive driving in order to better understand the underlying processes motivating aggressive driving. Early findings in the driving area have suggested that greater levels of aggression are elicited in response to an intentionally aggressive on-road event. In contrast, general aggression research suggests that greater levels of aggression are elicited in response to an ambiguous event. The current study examined emotional and cognitive responses to two hypothetical driving scenarios with differing levels of aggressive intent (intentional versus ambiguous). There was also an interest in whether factors influencing responses were different for hostile aggression (that is, where the action is intended to harm the other) versus instrumental aggression (that is, where the action is motivated by an intention to remove an impediment or attain a goal). Results were that significantly stronger negative emotion and negative attributions, as well as greater levels of threat were reported in response to the scenario which was designed to appear intentional in nature. In addition, participants were more likely to endorse an aggressive behavioural response to a situation that appeared deliberately aggressive than to one where the intention was ambiguous. Analyses to determine if greater levels of negative emotions and cognitions are able to predict aggressive responses provided different patterns of results for instrumental aggression from those for hostile aggression. Specifically, for instrumental aggression, negative emotions and negative attributions were significant predictors for both the intentional and the ambiguous scenarios. In addition, perceived threat was also a significant predictor where the other driver’s intent was clearly aggressive. However, lower rather than higher, levels of perceived threat were associated with greater endorsement of an aggressive response. For hostile aggressive behavioural responses, trait aggression was the strongest predictor for both situations. Overall the results suggest that in the driving context, instrumental aggression is likely to be a much more common response than hostile aggression. Moreover, aggressive responses are more likely in situations where another driver’s behaviour is clearly intentional rather than ambiguous. The results also support the conclusion that there may be different underlying mechanisms motivating an instrumental aggressive response to those motivating a hostile one. In addition, understanding the emotions and cognitions underlying aggressive driving responses may be helpful in predicting and intervening to reduce driving aggression. The finding that drivers appear to regard tailgating as an instrumental response is of concern since this behaviour has the potential to result in crashes.

Do people gamble with their lives : The relationship between risky driving behaviour and other risky behaviours

General risky behaviour is explored for correlation with risky driving behaviour in light of two theories, self-control and cross-situational consistency. Identification of general risky behaviours associated with risky driving behaviour, and the theory that best predicts the behaviours, will enable better targeting of intervention and education strategies to reduce driving related fatalities and injuries. A correlational study using participants (N=152) drawn from first year university undergraduates and the public surveyed their lifestyle and behaviours. Relationships were found between risky driving behaviours and other risky behaviours such as alcohol consumption, cannabis use and performing unlawful activities. No significant differences were found between genders, with the exception that males were more likely to believe that they were at risk of injury from their employment, χ2 (1, N = 152) = 4.49, p = .03, were more likely to have performed an unlawful offence, χ2 (1, N = 152) = 11.77, p = .001 and were more likely to drink drive, t (55.41) = -3.87, p < .001, mean difference = -0.63, CI 95% (-0.9, -0.37). People engaged in risky driving behaviours were more likely to engage in other risky behaviours. The theories that were explored were unable to accurately predict an association between general risky behaviour and driving without a license or when disqualified. Cross-situational consistency explained 20% (R2adj = .16) of the variance in which people engaged in risky driving with low self-control theory explaining an additional 0.3% variance (R2change = .003), F (8,143) = 6.92, p < .001. Driving while under the influence of alcohol could be predicted by risky behaviours in lifestyle, health, smoking, cannabis use and alcohol consumption, F (8,143) = 6.92, p < .001. The addition of self-control was not significant.

Visual motion perception predicts driving hazard perception ability

PURPOSE: To examine the basis of previous findings of an association between indices of driving safety and visual motion sensitivity and to examine whether this association could be explained by low-level changes in visual function. METHODS: 36 visually normal participants (aged 19 – 80 years), completed a battery of standard vision tests including visual acuity, contrast sensitivity and automated visual fields. and two tests of motion perception including sensitivity for movement of a drifting Gabor stimulus, and sensitivity for displacement in a random-dot kinematogram (Dmin). Participants also completed a hazard perception test (HPT) which measured participants’ response times to hazards embedded in video recordings of real world driving which has been shown to be linked to crash risk. RESULTS: Dmin for the random-dot stimulus ranged from -0.88 to -0.12 log minutes of arc, and the minimum drift rate for the Gabor stimulus ranged from 0.01 to 0.35 cycles per second. Both measures of motion sensitivity significantly predicted response times on the HPT. In addition, while the relationship involving the HPT and motion sensitivity for the random-dot kinematogram was partially explained by the other visual function measures, the relationship with sensitivity for detection of the drifting Gabor stimulus remained significant even after controlling for these variables. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that motion perception plays an important role in the visual perception of driving-relevant hazards independent of other areas of visual function and should be further explored as a predictive test of driving safety. Future research should explore the causes of reduced motion perception in order to develop better interventions to improve road safety.

How do perceptions of risk associated with driving while fatigued and perceptions of effectiveness of countermeasures effect willingness to engage in fatigue reducing countermeasures?

Sleep-related and fatigue-related driving is an important contributory factor in fatal and serious injury crashes - Accounts for approx 19% - Similar in magnitude to drink driving

Impaired driving countermeasures : an Australian perspective

The prevalence of impaired driving in Australia  Regulatory approaches used to manage: – Alcohol impaired driving – Other drug impaired driving  Key countermeasures – Lower blood alcohol limits – Random breath testing (RBT) – Random drug testing (RDT)  Ongoing challenges and future directions

An overview of CARRS-Q’s advanced driving simulator

The global road safety problem The role of human factors in road crashes The use of driving simulators in road safety research The CARRS-Q advanced driving simulator –Functionality –Problems encountered and related solutions Past and current projects using the driving simulator Limitations of driving simulators

Executive function development and stress effects on driving performance : preliminary findings from a young adult sample.

This chapter presents a pilot study examining the interactive contributions of executive function development/impairment and psychosocial stress to young adults’ (17-30 years old) driving behaviour in a simulator city scenario.

Protective factors associated with young passenger intervening in risky driving situations

While the negative influence of passengers on driving is usually studied, young passengers may protect against young drivers’ crash involvement by speaking out and trying to stop unsafe driving behavior. This study sought to examine psychosocial constructs of young passengers who are likely to intervene in their friends’ risky driving. Method: University students aged 17 to 25 years who were single (n = 123) or in a romantic relationship (n = 130) completed an online survey measuring protective factors. Results: The combination of individual, friend and (for participants in a relationship) romantic partner protective factors predicted self-reported passenger intervening intentions. Impact on Industry: Since peer passengers often increase young drivers’ crash risk, research on passenger intervening has significant implications for road safety strategies. The findings provide support for the operationalization of protective factors in strategies that target passenger intervening behavior.

A psychosocial model of young adult passengers’ intervening in unsafe driving of their friends

Young adults are over-represented in motor vehicle crashes and the carrying of same passengers puts them at greater risk of crashing. The current study examined characteristics of the passengers who might play a positive role in reducing friends’ crashes by actively engaging in strategies to protect such friends. A psychosocial theoretical model of prosocial behavior including self-process and contextual cues explained intervening behavior among primarily novice driver college students (n=242) with the exception of the self-process, perspective taking. The results of this study provide support for countermeasure development that accounts for the positive role of peers to increase road safety, and reduce the incidence of crashes, among young adults.