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.

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.

Male and female cyclist and driver perceptions of crash risk

Many drivers and non-cyclists perceive cycling as an extremely risky activity with women in particular being concerned about the risk of injury. The low rates of cycling participation by women pose a threat to the achievement of government targets for cycling participation and restrict the potential transport, health and environmental benefits that increased levels of cycling could provide. This study seeks to extend earlier research in gender and cycling by comparing the risks perceived by female and male cyclists and drivers in specific on-road situations while accounting for other potentially gender-related factors such as travel patterns and experience, perceived skill, and risk taking behaviors. In an online survey, 444 regular cyclists and 151 (non-cyclist) car drivers rated the level of risk in six situations: Failing to yield; Going through a red light; Not signaling when turning; Swerving; Tailgating; and Not checking traffic. The study found that the higher levels of risk perceived by women are not completely accounted for by differences in cycling patterns or perceptions of skill. Compared to their male counterparts, female cyclists and car drivers had similarly elevated perceptions of risk suggesting that these gender differences are not specific to cycling, but reflect wider differences in risk perception. Not all of the gender differences were consistent across cyclists and drivers. Higher levels of perceived skill were evident for male cyclists but not for male car drivers. Further research is needed to explore the robustness and interpretation of this finding.