Driver Aggression

[Danney Ball]

Driver Aggression

by Dominic Connell, BSc
& Matthew Joint, BSc, MSc, MCIT
Road Safety Unit
Group Public Policy
November, 1996

Background

"Road rage" has caught the public eye and become embedded in the common vocabulary. It can be used to refer to a variety of behaviors, from specific incidents of roadside assault (or, indeed, murder) to any exhibition of driver aggression. People perceive that society as a whole is becoming more violent, and our behavior behind the wheel is no exception. In January 1995, 62 percent of 526 drivers surveyed by the AA agreed that the behavior of motorists has changed for the worse in recent years1. Home Office statistics support this perception -- between July 1995 and June 1996, violent crime rose by 10 percent.2

It remains to be seen whether the emergence of the road rage phenomenon is merely a sign of the times; if we now pull fellow drivers from their cars to attack them when once a "V" sign3 and quiet curse would have sufficed, or if it is simply the case that a violent minority now spend more of their time driving (like the rest of us) and are therefore involved more frequently (and with greater media attention) in violent acts on the road.

In 1976, Naatanen and Summala suggested that aggressive road user behavior is often the result of the driver's frustration at being unable to progress unimpeded by traffic, but they also suggest that this kind of frustration could be provoked by a similar situation involving any means of transportation:

Consider, for instance, walking in a hurry along a very long and narrow corridor without any chances to pass a large person walking very slowly in front!4

Our aim, then, is to determine why "pedestrian rage" does not exist; if road rage has simply provided a convenient handle on which coincidental and unrelated incidents can be hung and thereby be given more weight, or if the driving environment provides a unique situation liable to give rise to aggressive behavior.

In 1968 Parry, an early researcher in this area, raised a similar point:

...anyone who, late for an appointment, tries to walk briskly along a crowded city street, heavy with slow-moving shop-gazers, will not improve his speed of progress if he angrily pushes aside his fellow-citizens, swears at them, or threatens them with physical assault. Yet this is precisely what a number of drivers in their vehicles do when pressed for time.5

Our comparison of the driving and walking scenarios can be divided into two primary questions:

1. Is the driving environment more likely to give rise to aggression?

2. Is the experience of aggressive emotion more likely to be translated into violent behavior in the driving environment?

Driving and Aggressive Emotion

There are several reasons why driving might be more likely to give rise to anger and aggression than walking. Naatanen and Summala's first suggestion is that the exertion of walking might help tap any pent-up aggression, so that the act itself might help prevent the possibility of aggressive behavior. Driving, on the other hand, may provide a greater field for stress and tension to accumulate, without providing an outlet.

Congestion is also undoubtedly an issue. Few drivers can claim to have never found themselves caught up in dense traffic which impedes their progress, whereas on most streets a pedestrian's progress is limited primarily by his or her physical capability. Drivers must also adhere to stringent limitations placed on their speed and movement, prescribed directly (by speed limits, or variations in the number of lanes available) and indirectly (by congestion). This means that it is easier for the driver to ascribe his frustration at being impeded to an ambiguous source, especially if he sees no reason for the obstruction.

Driving also represents a situation in which people are forced to take a high degree of interest in the movements and behavior of strangers. Walking into another person on the street accidentally might present some risks, but the potential expense and aggravation of damaging one's car in a collision far outweighs them. This burden of responsibility to see that the mistakes of others do not result in an accident may result in a greater susceptibility to aggression.

Aggressive driving maneuvers, such as tailgating (close following), can also be seen as the result of the driving environment, and they are undoubtedly also connected with the issue of congestion. On most roads driving is a situation in which all members of the community are made relatively equal by prescribed limits in the face of individual differences in capability and status. The vast majority of cars in the United Kingdom are fully capable of exceeding 70 mph; many are capable of twice this speed. And yet all cars, regardless of their worth or engine size, are forced to adhere to the same upper limits.

The car is symbolic in many ways, regardless of its owner's perception of it; often it is the individual's second most valuable belonging; it is frequently an important part of the owner's livelihood; often his main access to freedom; and, almost invariably, a "statement of self."

Its size, shape, power, color, and value may all be used by the owner as an expression of how he sees himself and how he wants others to see him. Every time the car is used its value and meaning is to some extent controlled and obstructed by forces beyond the driver's control, and it is placed at an unknown risk by other road users. It is this "egoic" aspect of driving which is perhaps more than anything else responsible for the uniqueness of driving and its unique ability to provoke emotion. And it is not only the car itself which can prove to be an emotional Achilles' heel. As Ntnen and Summala point out, driving is a skill which allows people to imagine themselves to be uniquely able without any real indicators to detract from this view. Drivers are not ranked in terms of skill and ability; individuals either pass their driving test and are able to drive or fail and are not, and yet most people would agree that some full license holders are unfit to drive.

In addition, the accident involvement of an individual can be used as a convenient and arbitrary indicator of how good a driver he or she is, creating an environment in which people can improve their self-esteem, seeing themselves as extraordinarily competent drivers who are thereby entitled to take more risks than others, drive more quickly, and criticize inferior road users.

In AA studies subjects have been asked about their accident experience. It is the only question which consistently provokes unprompted qualifications of the answer; respondents are not happy merely to tell us how many accidents they have been involved in. There are invariably mitigating circumstances, which demonstrate their bad luck in meeting particularly unable fellow drivers, and which waive any blame due themselves.

Driving is an emotive activity, and the car is a prized and symbolic possession which is uniquely able to provoke personal offense and territorial defense if any perceived threat occurs.

Psychological Mechanisms of Aggression and Rage

It may be useful in addressing this point to revert to wider analyses of aggression. In many animals aggression is undoubtedly a basic biological response -- an evolutionary drive which helps to ensure a species' survival. In humans, however, it is still unclear to what extent a firm biological basis for aggression can be assumed, as opposed to being a learned response developed through imitation of others and reinforced by the experience of its results. This lack of clarity is based on numerous experiments; if a certain area of the brain, the hypothalamus, is artificially stimulated in certain animals, aggressively violent behavior is normally instigated. This is not the case for humans, however, suggesting that social factors may be more influential in human aggression.

Experiments in which people are encouraged to vent aggression and then record the emotional results support the suggestion that human aggression is not simply an innate drive. If aggression were a basic biological drive like hunger, it should be cathartic, i.e., after aggressive acts have been carried out the individual's frustration and anger should be to some extent satiated. Many such experiments suggest that this is not the case.6 This means that by allowing ourselves to vent "pent-up" anger, by swearing or gesticulating for example, the problem will not be resolved. Venting anger may, in fact, serve only to warrant displays of aggression at a more intense level, since the desired result (satiation) has not been achieved. In short, there is strong evidence against the commonly held belief that a good way of handling anger is to "get it all out." Venting anger appears to do little or nothing to reduce feelings of aggression.

The design of the brain means that we have little or no control over when we are swept by emotion, nor over what emotion it will be, but we can have some control over how long the emotion will last.7 This is particularly relevant to intense emotions such as rage. There are different kinds of anger in terms of physiology as well as experience. The more primitive part of the brain, the limbic system, may be the source of the rage we feel in response to a driver who has threatened or endangered us, but it is the "thinking" part of the brain, the neocortex, which produces more calculated anger such as revenge or outrage at unfairness or injustice.

There has been a lack of well-reasoned explanations for rage and, in the main, only the most simplistic explanations for road rage. However, in a recent publication Goleman8 provides perhaps one of the most succinct and accessible "scientific" explanations for rage, although not specifically road rage. Scientific evidence suggests that anger is the emotion that people are least able to control.9 As Goleman puts it:

...anger is the most seductive of the negative emotions; the self-righteous inner monologue that propels it along fills the mind with the most convincing arguments for venting rage. Unlike sadness, anger is energizing, even exhilarating.10

Goleman suggests that the seductive nature of anger may explain why views that it is uncontrollable (or that it should not be controlled) and that venting anger is "cathartic" are common, in spite of the fact that the research fails to support these beliefs.

Danger may be perceived in symbolic threats to self-esteem: unjust treatment, being patronized or insulted, or simply being frustrated in attempts to achieve a particular goal. These perceptions cause the limbic system to release catecholamines (organic compounds known to contribute to the functioning of the nervous system), which results in a sudden vigorous action that prepares the individual to take flight or fight depending on the situation (what Goleman refers to as the "rage rush"). This state will last for a few minutes only. Simultaneously, however the limbic system prompts arousal in the nervous system, providing a longer-lasting, more general state of readiness upon which subsequent reactions can build particularly quickly. In effect this state of arousal lowers the threshold of the point at which anger is provoked.11

Theories suggest that the "higher," civilized elements of the mind become subordinate to our most primitive responses; successive anger-provoking thoughts become a trigger for surges of catecholamines, each building on the hormonal momentum of those preceding it. Before the first has subsided there is a second, closely followed by a third, and so on, such that the body is rapidly in a state of extreme arousal. Consequently, an aggressive thought that occurs later in this process is likely to result in a greater intensity of anger than one that occurs at the beginning. In Goleman's words:

Anger builds on anger; the emotional brain heats up. By then rage, unhampered by reason, easily erupts in violence. At this point people are unforgiving and beyond being reasoned with; their thoughts revolve around revenge and reprisal, oblivious to what the consequences might be ...the rawest lessons of life's brutality become guides to action.12

Is Driving Aggression an Index of General Aggression in Society?

Individuals vary enormously in their propensity to display aggression. The positive responses which previous expressions of aggression have elicited will lead certain people to rely on aggressive behavior as a method to achieve their own ends. Driver aggression may therefore act as an index of a society's general propensity to act aggressively. Any unusual tendency the driving experience offers of provoking aggression will make little difference to those drivers whose personal experiences have never led them to believe that aggression is a reliable short cut to achieving their aims.

Whitlock13 explored this aspect of the driver aggression issue by correlating the number of road deaths with the number of violent deaths (murder and suicide) in numerous countries. From this research he concluded that:

...road death and injury rates are the result, to a considerable extent, of the expression of aggressive behavior ...those societies with the greatest amount of violence and aggression in their structure will show this by externalizing some of this violence in the form of dangerous and aggressive driving...

A similar contemporary correlation for regions of the United Kingdom can be conducted. Fatal and serious road accident statistics are currently compiled by the local authority, and homicide statistics are compiled in terms of the police force, so that comparisons can only be made for those regions where these two groups correspond exactly. Using the 1994 statistics for only these areas14, however, a correlation coefficient of 0.7 is produced, suggesting a strong predictive link between road accident and homicide rates. Furthermore, a comparison of regional accident statistics and population density does not suggest that this link is mitigated by the size of each region; in other words, those areas with high homicide rates will typically also exhibit high serious and fatal road accident levels, and this link is not necessarily merely a consequence of the region's population or geographical size. Nationally, Whitlock would appear to be supported.

Driver aggression is an issue which must be addressed in far wider terms than road rage -- if the driving environment is unique in its ability to provoke negative and potentially dangerous emotion, only a proportion of this will result in violent behavior directed at the driver's immediate neighbors. There is a danger that drivers who do not effectively deal with their anger towards fellow motorists might underestimate the influence their aggression will exert on their driving. As early as 1968 supportive experimental evidence for this was provided. In an analysis of fatal accidents, Selzer, Rogers, and Kern15 found that in 20 percent of the cases they surveyed the drivers had been found to have been involved in aggressive altercations at some point in the last six hours before their death. This would equate to 724 deaths in 1995 in the United Kingdom.

If driving does increase people's propensity to display aggressive emotion and behavior, while evidently providing many drivers with a perceived means of emotional escape, a conflict is clearly apparent and many drivers involved in road accidents may be the victim of their own or other motorists' inability to resolve aggression behind the wheel. In these terms driver aggression is a greater risk to the person experiencing the aggression than to his fellow drivers.

Environmental influences on aggression.

It is widely accepted that there are numerous environmental variables which can, under certain circumstances, either provoke aggression or increase the likelihood of its occurrence.

Noise

Research suggests that noise is an unusual environmental influence on aggression, because it influences the intensity of aggression which has already been provoked, rather than adding to other variables which might together culminate in aggression. To an extent this can be seen as a result of the direct effect of noise on frustration rather than aggression.

The probability of finding any causal link between noise and the presence or intensity of aggression appears to rely on the level of control the subject has over the noise. If the individual has no control over the volume or duration of an irritating noise, the level of aggression provoked by something else is likely to be raised. Such noise tends to produce stress, and makes concentration more difficult, so that any further infringements will probably be reacted against, and individuals who already find themselves in an aggression-producing situation will aggress more intensely.

The ramifications this has for the driving environment are clear: In congestion, for example, the noise of other vehicles and even car stereos may inhibit the driver's tolerance of frustration so that any aggression will be displayed at a higher and potentially more dangerous level.

Noise is perhaps, therefore, a unique predictor of and influence on aggression because of its ancillary relationship to other environmental factors.

Temperature

The incidence of violent crime is widely reported to increase during the summer months. While a causal link between hot weather and aggression is commonly supposed to exist, experimental evidence to support this view is sparse, and the interpretation and comparison of laboratory and "real world" surveys is difficult. The central problem is one of controllability; regardless of the commitment an experimental subject might have to the study, and the social restraints that may act to preclude his abandoning the project, the fact remains that if the heat the experimenter generates artificially becomes unbearable the subject can insist on its level being reduced, or can call an end to the experiment. This knowledge appears to have a profound effect on laboratory studies of heat and aggression -- most of the frustration and irritation extreme heat incurs can be seen to originate in the extent to which this situation is beyond the individual's control.

One experiment which overcame this difficulty, however, and which can be related directly to our understanding of driver aggression, is that of Kenrick and MacFarlane16. In their experiment a car was repeatedly positioned in front of another vehicle at a set of traffic lights, and the driver would deliberately ignore the presence of a green light and remain stationary. A basic standard measure of the aggression of the driver behind was formulated, based on the time which elapsed before he or she sounded the horn, the number of times the horn was sounded, and the duration of each sounding. This measure was assumed to indicate the annoyance and aggression of the obstructed driver.

A direct, linear relationship between the outside temperature and this aggression measure emerged. Kenrick and MacFarlane had thus tested the effects of heat under experimental conditions which did not allow subjects to assume they could avoid or control the level of heat. It would appear from these results that there can be seen a direct influence of heat on driver aggression.

Overcrowding

The effects of overcrowding on aggression are difficult to calibrate or predict, primarily because, unlike noise and temperature, overcrowding is a wholly subjective environmental feature. Direct measures of population density or available space can be correlated experimentally with aggression levels, but only when the density is perceived by the subjects of the experiment to constitute overcrowding.

These findings are relevant to the driving scenario, and perhaps more specifically to traffic congestion. Very slow or stationary traffic situations present typical conditions in which driver aggression can be allowed to reach detrimental levels. The environmental influences mentioned above, heat and noise, may well exert the most influence in congestion, and a sense of overcrowding is certainly most likely to arise there.

Individual differences and the car as an annex of the home

Individual differences in our predisposition to be aggressive may be important in the driving experience in deciding the outcome of conflict. The extent to which the vehicle symbolizes real and imagined aspects of the driver's individuality has already been outlined; the car is an indication, to both the driver himself and those around him, of social standing, of wealth, of attitude, and of

personality. But when a situation of conflict arises,

individual differences may again be of singular importance.

Any form of attack is a reliable and potent stimulus for aggression, particularly when the "victim perceives the event to be wholly deliberate and indicative of malicious intent. If this is not the case, i.e., if the individual decides on balance that the conflict arose from error and misjudgment, as is frequently the case on the road, the extent to which aggression is used in retaliation is probably determine to a greater extent by individual predispositions. The problem of feedback in the driving environment is again important; if it is relatively difficult to communicate to another driver that an unfortunate maneuver was the result of a mistake on your part, his decision as to whether or not your action was deliberate and personally aggressive is internally generated -- you are uniquely reliant on the margin with which he gives the benefit of the doubt, the extent to which he feels generally aggrieved, and therefore his predisposition to being aggressive."

Interpersonal Communication

Low levels of aggression while driving, such as swearing or gesticulating, will often be futile. Feedback from the party to whom the aggression is directed will be extremely limited; it will often be impossible to ascertain whether or not the grievance is acknowledged, and the aggressed-upon will be unable to communicate any apology or submission effectively. To return to our walking analogy, it is easy to express apology and goodwill when another pedestrian is accidentally bumped into on the street through verbal communication and body language. In the car, however, this is not possible. An attempt to gesticulate submission may even, in fact, be construed as a signal of offensive retaliation and provoke more violent behavior.

Secondly, as a living space which the driver personally owns, the car is subject to cultural standards of behavior that differ from those which exist in the outside world. In general it is socially acceptable for people to display aggression at a higher level within their own home than they would do in public, often even when it intrudes, by its noise for example, on others. The car presents similar levels of privacy and territorial invulnerability. To return to the analogy with walking, if the behavior of one pedestrian threatens the safe progress of another, it is immediately important that an accurate assessment is made of whether or not this obstruction is deliberate and whether retaliation is required. It is more likely that a verbal or physical display of annoyance will be noticed, and an accurate assessment is needed so that an appropriate level of aggression can be displayed .

Otherwise the aggrieved can expect to be ridiculed rather than supported.

The car, therefore, can be seen to straddle the boundary between personally owned space where, within limits, the individual's behavior is accountable only to the standards he has set himself, and the public domain, where behavior is regulated by general acceptability and explicit rules.

"Cures" for Road Rage

It is important that we challenge the thoughts that provoke anger before there is opportunity for the successive waves of anger to compound. The sooner we intervene in the "anger cycle"17 the more effective the intervention is likely to be. The tactic is to concentrate on mitigating information that might put the provocative circumstances in a more reasonable light. However, Zillmann emphasizes the point that at already high levels of rage people are often unable to think in a rational manner and are likely to dismiss mitigating information regardless.

Drivers must also be advised to pay more attention to their own level of emotion; the evidence suggests that drivers who allow their emotions to get out of hand behind the wheel represent a greater risk to themselves than to those around them. It is especially important that drivers aren't tempted to resolve aggressive emotion with small-scale outbursts of abusive language or gesticulation; research suggests this will not improve their ability to overcome the situation and concentrate on driving, and the risk of retaliation will obviously increase. The evidence linking driver aggression and road accidents with general socially dysfunctional behavior such as violent crime, though scarce, does not support the argument that extreme driver aggression -- "road rage" -- is the result of our cultural prohibition of emotional displays.

An alternative tactic suggested by Zillmann is to find a situation where further provocation is unlikely and wait for the surge of adrenaline to dissipate, what Goleman describes as psychologically "cooling off." Distraction is a key device in achieving this. Ironically, Tice18 found that a large proportion of men cool down by going for a drive -- which cannot be recommended. Goleman suggests safer alternatives, such as going for a long walk or, more dynamically, using specific relaxation methods. The basic theory behind this is that after high levels of physiological activation during the exercise the body rapidly returns to a low level once it ceases. The important point is that any attempt to cool off has to be sufficiently distracting to interfere with the train of anger-inducing thought. Tice's research found that TV, films, and reading also aided cooling off, even though these cannot be classified as physiologically active pursuits. Goleman also highlights the need for self-awareness to ensure that we identify cynical or hostile thoughts as they arise.

We have already seen that controllability has been a significant factor in laboratory studies of the effects of noise and temperature upon aggression. Control is a crucial element in the management of stress and aggression -- frustration need not lead to aggression. It is important to have an appropriate set of responses that enable one to cope with the frustration. This may not remove the cause of the stress, but should mitigate the worst effects or prevent any escalation of the situation.

Understanding why people behave in particular ways in particular situations brings a sense of control. Simply having sufficient information about why a driver is behaving in a particular way means that one is more able to predict behavior and, if necessary, more able to take avoiding action.

The evidence of environmental variables' influence on aggression has perhaps the greatest bearing on how we advise drivers to avoid aggression and conflict on the roads, by both supporting the logic behind advice which is already given and by supplementing our knowledge of those circumstances where aggression is most likely. Sharing the road safely and being patient in traffic remain eminently sensible pieces of advice, particularly given our understanding of how overcrowding can be seen to influence aggression. Drivers need to learn to bear in mind those environmental circumstances which appear more likely to provoke aggression, for example, excessive temperature and congestion.

Punishment

It is the AA's view that those so-called "road rage" offenses that are not adequately covered by motoring law are covered by existing criminal law. The possible offenses are listed in Appendix 2. The magistrates and law courts have, on occasion, requested that a "road rage" offender attend a course on anger management or receive psychiatric attention. However, the AA would like to see clearer guidelines for the treatment of offenders. In particular, there may be cases where a "road rage" offender can only be convicted of a non-motoring offense even though his or her aggressive behavior is clearly linked to driving and the driving environment. In such cases, the AA would support moves that enable the magistrates and courts to impose a driving disqualification.

Putting Driver Aggression in Perspective

As a phenomenon which has only comparatively recently raised public concern, and one for which statistical evidence is not routinely collected at present, the incidence of injuries and deaths attributable to driver aggression is difficult to ascertain. Attempts to estimate the potential number of road rage cases tend to be based on the extrapolation of small-scale surveys, which is a tenuous methodology given the difficulties in providing an accurate prognosis of the problem.

The high profile given to cases that result in death is, in fact, the only variable which facilitates an approximate calculation of incidence. On the assumption that six cases of death resulting from "road rage" conflicts have occurred in 1996, it can be postulated that as members of the UK population, while we typically face a 1 in 15,686 chance of being killed in a road accident, the probability of dying as a result of "road rage" is closer to one in 9.5 million.

Part of the "cure" for road rage is that the public's perspective of the problem is restored to realistic proportions. Correspondingly, those areas of road safety that have been proven to be a significant factor in a much greater percentage of road accidents, fatigue for example, should be given greater weight. Disturbingly, there are some indications that attention on driver aggression may be attracting investment and research from other, more important areas.

It is irresponsible to suggest that there are fundamental problems within our society on the data we have at present. Although the individual's perception of prevalent social problems is, in part, based on personal experience, we should not underestimate the effects of society's mass communicators, the media. Inevitably, however, researchers, social scientists, and other opinion formers have to take a degree of responsibility; essentially, this responsibility is to act and speak only on reliable evidence.

1 "Road Rage," The Automobile Association Group Public Policy Road Safety Unit, March 1995

2 Home Office Statistical Bulletin: Government Statistical Service

3 The British equivalent of the American "finger."

4 "Road User Behavior and Traffic Accidents," R. Ntnen and H. Summala, 1976, North Holland Publishing Co.: Amsterdam

5 "Aggression on the Road," London: Parry M. H., 1968

6 Geen, Russell G., Human Aggression. Milton Keynes: Open University Press

7 Geen, op cit.

8 Goleman, D., Emotional Intelligence

9 Quoted as part of D. Zillmann, "Mental Control of Angry Aggression," in Wegner and Pannebaker's Handbook of Mental Control

10 Goleman, op cit.

11 Zillmann, op cit.

12 Goleman, op cit.

13 Whitlock, F.A., Death on the Road: A Study in Social Violence. London: Tavistock

14 Using this "identical area of responsibility" criterion resulted in the correlation of statistics for 34 regions.

15 Selzer, Rogers, and Kern, "Fatal Accidents: The Role of Psychopathology, Social Stress, and Acute Disturbance" in The American Journal of Psychiatry, 124, pp 1022-1036.

16 Kenrick, D.C., and MacFarlane, S.W., "Ambient Temperature and Horn Honking: A Field Study of the Heat/Aggression Relationship" in Environment and Behaviour, 18, 179-91, 1986

17 Geen, op cit

18 Tice, op cit.

Appendix

Driver Aggression:

Penalties IN THE UNITED KINGDOM

Road Traffic Legislation

Causing Death by Dangerous Driving: 10 years imprisonment; disqualification for 12 months and a re-test, and/or a fine. Triable only on indictment 1

Dangerous Driving: £5,000 or six months or both plus disqualification for one year and a re-test.

Careless or Inconsiderate Driving: £2,500 plus three to nine penalty points.

Causing Danger to Other Road Users: Triable summarily2, £5,000 or six months or both. Triable on indictment -- seven years or a fine or both.

Offenses other than Road Traffic Offenses

Murder or Manslaughter could be charged in the appropriate circumstances; the sentence for both can be life imprisonment.

Common Assault: Six months or £5,000 or both.

Wounding with Intent: Can be life imprisonment.

Unlawful Wounding Five years and/or fine. Triable only on indictment.

Causing Injury by Furious Driving: On indictment five years and/or a fine. Otherwise six months

and/or £5,000.

Using Threatening, Abusive, or Insulting Words or Behavior, thereby causing fear or provocation, or offering violence with intent to cause a person to believe that unlawful violence will be used: Six months or £5,000 or both.

As above, but using threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behavior and causing harassment, fear, or distress: £1,000 -- in this element there is no actual intent of violence.

Criminal Damage: Six months and/or £5,000, unless the following elements are present, which would dictate that the cause be tried on indictment: a) Committed by a group; b) The damage is of high value; c) There is clear racial motivation.

The Highway Code

The new version of the Highway Code, published July of 1995, contains a supplement that includes the following:

Be Careful and Considerate of Other Road users

Don't drive aggressively. Try to be understanding if another driver causes a problem.

10. If someone is behaving badly on the road, don't get involved. If you feel angry, pull over and calm down.

11. If a vehicle behind you is trying to overtake but can't, take no action. Keep a steady course and stay within the speed limit. Pull over if it is safe to do so and let the vehicle pass. Never obstruct drivers who wish to overtake. Speeding up or driving unpredictably while someone is overtaking you can be very dangerous.

12. Never overtake a vehicle indicating right. Even if you believe the signal should have been canceled, don't take a risk. Wait for the signal to be canceled.

13. If a vehicle pulls out into your path at a junction, slow down and hold back to allow it to get clear. Don't overreact by driving up too close behind it.

1 An indictable offense being one dealt with in the Crown Courts by jury.

2 i.e., by magistrate

References:

Automobile Association, 1995, "Road Rage"

Geen, Russell G., 1990, Human Aggression,

Milton Keynes: Open University Press

Goleman, David, 1986, Emotional Intelligence, London: Bloomsbury

Howard, A., and Joint, M., 1994, "Fatigue and Stress in Driving," The Automobile Association

Kenrick D.T., and MacFarlane, S.W., 1986, "Ambient Temperature and Horn Honking: A field study of the heat/aggression relationship." Environment and Behaviour, 18, 179-91 (Publisher and city needed.)

Ntnen, R., and Summala, H., 1976. Road User Behavior and Traffic Accidents, Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company

Parry, M.H., 1968, Aggression on the Road,

London: Tavistock

Selzer, M.L., Rogers, J.E., and Kern, S., 1968: "Fatal Accidents: The Role of Psychopathology, Social Stress, and Acute Disturbance," American Journal of Psychiatry, 124, 1028-1036

Wegner and Pannebaker, 1993, Handbook of Mental Control, v.5, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Preutice-Hall

Whitlock, F.A., 1971, Death on the Road: A Study in Social Violence, London: Tavistock