PP5802 – Policy Analysis

Policy Memo Proposal

Agnes Feng Guimei, Rohit Sahgal, Noel Chow, Muhammad Farooq Wajid, San Nay Thway,

Yuta Momose and Vybhav Dhar

Nipping Road Rage in the Bud – A Case for Curtailing Aggressive Honking in

Singapore

This policy memo proposal is directed to: The Transport Ministry, Land Transport Authority,

and The Ministry of Transport as a collective call to collaborate on necessary combined

policies in the quest to make Singapore a more liveable city.

1. Problem Statement

“Noise (pollution) has been found to be associated with annoyance, stress, sleep disturbance,

and impaired cognitive performance. Furthermore, epidemiological studies have found that

environmental noise is associated with an increased incidence of arterial hypertension,

myocardial infarction, heart failure, and stroke. Observational and translational studies

indicate that especially night-time noise increases levels of stress hormones and vascular

oxidative stress, which may lead to endothelial dysfunction and arterial hypertension”

(Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2018). The level of noise pollution caused by

vehicular horns has become a noticeable rising trend and is at risk of not only a health

concern but harming Singapore’s image as a global standard liveable city.

Linked to this, the number of road rage incidents are on the rise in Singapore. The causes of

road rage are varied – ranging from increasingly impatient drivers under stress from

increasingly heavy traffic, to the prevalence of in-car video cameras allowing drivers to

record the actions of other drivers and thereby boosting their own sense of being in the right,

to the high cost of motor vehicles in Singapore making Singaporean drivers much more

protective of their "investments". Dangerous driving is also ranked highly as a road rage

trigger. This paper investigates the role of aggressive honking in causing road rage triggers to

escalate into confrontation and proposes the regulation of aggressive honking as a measure to

curtail violent escalation.

2. Background and Context

We are less interested in the initial triggers of road rage for the purposes of the policy

proposal but more so in the circumstances that lead to confrontation and other health related

impact factors. In 2002, 61 cases of road rage driven confrontations involving violence were

reported, while in 2015 there were 75, 69 in 2014 and 90 in 2013. 1 In this regard, this policy

memo is targeted not at preventing road rage per se, but in preventing confrontational

encounters on the road from escalating into violence. It is unknown how many people with

underlying conditions were hospitalised or lost workdays due to their illnesses being

exacerbated by honking and noise pollution stresses.

One of the drivers interviewed in this Straits Times article (DATE PLZ.) expressed that

"Drivers slowing down in front of you for no reason, or tailgating. I do get angry, but I

wouldn't go beyond just a few toots of the horn"2.

1
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/why-are-we-so-angry-on-the-road
2
Ibid.
In this paper, we hypothesise that drivers either driving under stressful conditions or

displaying characteristics of aggressive driving (swerving, tailgating etc.) are in a heightened

state of aggression and are likely to respond negatively to even "just a few toots of the horn".

Sounding the horn aggressively in such a situation is, in many cases, likely to result in an

unnecessary tit for tat, which presumably can result in violent confrontation once both drivers

are in a heightened state of aggression.

An outright ban to honking will likely mitigate such escalations, but the horn does serve a

practical function and was designed as a default feature in modern day motor vehicles as an

indicator to alert other road users of danger. In what ways then, can we prevent the abuse of

the horn as a tool of aggression, and especially its involvement in escalating a road rage

trigger into confrontation? An appropriate policy response rests on the consideration of what

other social problems are instituted by aggressive and excessive use of the horn.

3. Other Social Problems Associated with Chronic Aggressive Honking – Signs of a

Sick, Emotionally Bereaved Society

There are several other problems associated with unnecessary honking. First of all, it is really

noisy, if motorists use horn excessively. As noted above, honking does affect health

adversely, as Mayank observed its physical and psychological effects, for example, high

blood pressure, hearing deterioration, and irritation (Mayank, 2020)3. Secondly, excessive

noisy environment created by traffic noise, contributed to by unrestrained honking makes it

3
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=http%3A%2F%2Fweb2py.iiit.ac.in%2Fresearch_centres
%2Fpublications%2Fdownload
%2Fmastersthesis.pdf.9ece52f6cc10082d.4d6179616e6b207468657369732e706466.pdf&psig=AOvVaw2K8Zkt
WZUf3ec7mX4zfP9j&ust=1613373047843000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=2ahUKEwj6kMOM6ejuAhUdiksFH
blTBusQr4kDegUIARCAAQ
difficult to notice and avert real traffic accidents. The horn is supposed to be used sparingly,

however, if people horn unnecessarily, drivers get accustomed to the sound and thus, it

prevents drivers from realizing and preventing traffic accidents. Another social problem

happens when drivers, in a fit of rage, resort to verbal aggression using cuss words directed

towards pedestrians and/or fellow motorists, which negatively affects the social relations and

can trigger on-road brawls, further halting traffic flow.

4. Evaluation of the Legal Position – What Laws are Currently in Place

In order to restrict the usage of horn, there are some countries which regulate the horn usage

under ‘ROAD TRAFFIC ACT’. For instance, Japanese Road Traffic Act Article 54 (2)

mentions that ‘The driver of a vehicle or streetcar must not sound the horn unless required to

do so pursuant to laws and regulations; provided, however, that this does not apply if

sounding the horn is necessary in order to prevent a hazard’(Japan Road Traffic Act, 2015).

Further, Article 120 (1) describes about the fines. However, Singapore’s Road Traffic Act

just mentions that in article 140 as “the appropriate Minister may make rules with respect to

any of the following matters or for any of the following purposes: (m) prescribing and

restricting the number and kind of brakes, bells, horns or other warning instruments to be

fitted to vehicles of any particular kind or description”.(Singapore Road Traffic Act, 2004

(As of Feb 10, 2021))4. It means that Singapore does not specifically mention the fine for

unnecessary usage of horn. Until now, the appropriate authority, the Singapore Police, has

not specified that the usage of horn is penalized by fine or any other way as this is not even

listed in the ‘List Of Scheduled Offences’ in Article 28 (Basic Theory of Driving Official

Handbook, 2020) in spite of the fact that it is mentioned regarding ‘Use of Horn’ in Article

158, that ‘(b) Do not use the horn to express anger or frustration and (d) Sounding your horn
4
https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act-Rev/276/Published/20041231?DocDate=19971220
when driving is unnecessary, except as a warning. In some areas e.g. near a school or

hospital, it is an offence to use the horn, except to avoid an accident (Basic Theory of Driving

Official Handbook, 2020)5’.

5. Case Study – Other Countries

Nepal’s capital Kathmandu decided to go for a blanket ban on honking as a new year

resolution starting first day of Bikrami Sambat, its official calendar, corresponding to the 14 th

of April 2017, under the leadership of its then Traffic Police Chief Mingmar Lama.

According to Lama, the car horn was a symbol of being ‘uncivilized’ and he wanted to show

the world otherwise. A steep fine of 500 NPRs coupled with public awareness campaign has

returned the Kathmandu valley its pleasant quiet.i,ii

Another example is from Nepal’s eastern neighbour, the Kingdom of Bhutan, where, apart

from the Gross National Happiness (GNH) being given more importance than the Gross

Domestic Product (GDP), there are absolutely no traffic lights, all over the Kingdom,

including the capital city Thimpu. The pilot project of installing the traffic lights, way back

in 1995, did not show any significant improvement, and the onerous task was entrusted back

to the Royal Bhutan Police, who man the traffic manually, evidently very efficiently. Thus,

notwithstanding the absence of any legal requirement or traffic police order, drivers in

Thimpu, and pretty much, all over the Bhutan don’t honk unnecessarily, except while

negotiating the mountainous curves, that too, in a very gentle manner.iii,iv

basic theory - Singapore Police Force www.police.gov.sg › Files › Online-Learning-Portal ‘Basic Theory of
Driving The Official Handbook’
To tackle unnecessary honking, China’s capital Beijing created a noise pollution map in 2009

which identified silence zones near schools, hospitals and workplaces, where honking was

prohibited. Furthermore, the Beijing’s Traffic Management Bureau installed acoustic cameras

at busy intersections to catch honking drivers. The footage helps authorities determine

whether driver’s action is carried out in a reasonable manner and further penalties are

applicable. This acoustic camera system has been rolled out in over 40 cities in China with a

nearly 95% accuracy rate of locating noise source.

Hoking in India has its habitual root, where drivers honk more out of impatience and

irritation than need. Some auto manufacturers in India developed a honk reduction system

called Bleep, which involves a red button on the dashboard of a car that beeps and flashes

with a frowning face every time the driver hits the horn. The driver must physically press the

red button in order to switch the light off. It made driver conscious about the inappropriate

habit and reduce honking by 61 percent according to the first experiment.[1].

6. Policy Recommendations

We believe the way forward is a two-pronged policy approach. One from the perspective of

motorist education and the other from car manufacturer/import reforms:

1. Apply behaviour change strategies towards honking by way of LTA road training and

licence pre-requisites as well as road signs and possible fines.

2. Involve private vehicle manufacturer and distributor partnership to define

volume/pitch/technology-driven options to define horn innovation standards in

/Singapore.
 8. Bibliography:
I) Patteson, P. (2017). The Car Horn is Uncivilized: How Kathmandu’s Streets Went Quiet: London.

The Guardian. (Link)

II) Doshi, V. (2017). A Himalayan City Once Deafened by Car Horns Has Now Gone Blisfully Quiet:

Washington. The Washington Post. (Link)

III) Little Bhutan Blog (2015). Driving In and Around Bhutan: Thimpu. (Link)

IV) The Soup Spoon Travel Blog (2016). 7 Things from 7 Days in Bhutan | 4. No Traffic Lights, No

Problem: Singapore. (Link)

V) Damani, A. (2013). We Are All Horny: India. Behavioral Design. (Link)

Munzel, T. et al (2018). Environmental Noise and The Cardiovascular System: Washington DC.

Journals of the American College of Cardio. (Link)

Vi) Bever, L. (2018). Why Car Horns, Planes and Sirens Might be Bad for Your Heart: Washington

DC. The Washington Post. (Link)