See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/249624540

Examining Road Rage / Aggressive Driving

Article  in  Environment and Behavior · September 2003

DOI: 10.1177/0013916503254758

CITATIONS READS
20 2,036

2 authors:

Ronald Gregory Burns Michael Katovich

Texas Christian University Texas Christian University
50 PUBLICATIONS   962 CITATIONS    63 PUBLICATIONS   750 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Book Review View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ronald Gregory Burns on 11 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ENVIRONMENT
Burns & Katovich /AND
ARTICLE BEHAVIOR
10.1177/0013916503254758
EXAMINING / September
ROAD 2003
RAGE/AGGRESSIVE DRIVING

EXAMINING ROAD RAGE /

AGGRESSIVE DRIVING
Media Depiction and Prevention Suggestions

RONALD G. BURNS is an associate professor of criminal justice in the Department

of Sociology, Criminal Justice, and Anthropology at Texas Christian University. His
research interests involve media depiction of crime, police violence, and corporate
deviance.

MICHAEL A. KATOVICH is a professor of sociology in the Department of Sociol-

ogy, Criminal Justice, and Anthropology at Texas Christian University. His areas of
interest include symbolic interaction, media studies, and perceptions of drug and
alcohol abuse.

ABSTRACT: Reports on road rage/aggressive driving imply that most everyone who
drives could be involved and affected by such emotions. As victims, witnesses, perpe-
trators, or protectors, many drivers are confronted with at least some type of aggres-
sion and violence on the roadways. Despite inconsistent definitions and subsequent
questionable measurements of road rage/aggressive driving, formal social control
efforts directed at problematic drivers seem to be the preferred approach for pre-
vention. The present study used newspaper accounts for issue identification regard-
ing the proposed causes of road rage/aggressive driving. It was found that personal/
individual factors are more often noted than environmental cues regarding the causes
of road rage. In contrast to the more popular crime control approach, a nontraditional
application of crime prevention through environmental design, which focuses on traf-
fic facilitation, is offered to address violent and aggressive drivers.

Keywords: road rage; aggressive driving; crime prevention through environmental

design (CPTED); traffic facilitation; road rage prevention

Law enforcement agents, the news media, and social scientists were already
paying considerable attention to road rage in early 1999 when former box-
ing heavyweight champion, Mike Tyson, was sentenced to a year in jail for
assaulting two men after a minor traffic accident. The decision by Judge
Stephen P. Johnson of Montgomery County (Maryland) District Court, who
ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 35 No. 5, September 2003 621-636
DOI: 10.1177/0013916503254758
© 2003 Sage Publications

621
622 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / September 2003

called the assaults “a potentially lethal example of road rage” (Smith, 1999,
p. 1), meant further jail time for Tyson, as he was still on probation for a 1992
rape conviction. The altercation began when a car driven by Monica Tyson
(Tyson’s wife) was hit from behind.
Tyson’s offense occurred about a year and a half after a Durham, North
Carolina, driver’s education instructor resigned following being charged
with assault. Police reports suggested he ordered a student driver to chase a
car that had cut them off, and then punched the other driver in the nose. After
the punch, the victim drove off, and the instructor ordered the student driver
to give chase again. A police officer pulled them over for speeding.
The increased attention to road rage focuses on driver behavior—more
specifically, aggressive driver behavior. Noting the dramatic implications of
the term road rage, Bowles and Overberg (1998) suggested that “the stories
are everywhere. Heinous or humorous, accounts of aggressive driving and
‘road rage’ are spawning headlines that warn of ‘free-for-all freeways’ and
‘the new asphalt jungle’ ” (p. 17A). Adding to the drama, lawmakers became
so alarmed with reports of road rage that they called congressional hearings.
One staff member suggested that aggressive driving had become “a national
disaster,” whereas then Transportation Secretary, Rodney Slater, stated that
aggressive driving had become one of the nation’s top three highway threats
along with drunken driving and failure to use seat belts (Bowles & Overberg,
1998).
Former vice president Al Gore also recognized the problem, suggesting
that “the old battle between cities and suburbs is now obsolete because people
in cities and suburbs and also in surrounding rural areas are now seeing the
common interest they have in making communities livable” (Page, 1999,
p. 3A). Gore added, “Even the phenomenon of ‘road rage’ is related to the
increasing number of minutes and hours each day Americans are spending
caught up in traffic jams” (Page, 1999, p. 3A). A 1997 poll conducted by
AAA (formerly known as the American Automobile Association) indi-
cated that 44% of motorists rated aggressive driving as the biggest threat on
the road. Such findings prompted one media analyst to say that road rage was
“no longer a catchy phrase,” adding, “Now it’s a social issue” (Bowles &
Overberg, 1998, p. 17A).
The present research concerns media depiction of the causes of road rage.
Although we appreciate those who see road rage as a melodramatic news
story (e.g., Glassner, 1999), we nevertheless recognize that attention to it can
be real in its consequences (Thomas & Thomas, 1928). In this light, we
examine the causes of road rage as presented in newspapers as they relate to
both human behavior and the environment. Because the media play a sub-
stantial role in issue identification (e.g., Burns & Crawford, 1999), we felt
 Burns & Katovich / EXAMINING ROAD RAGE/AGGRESSIVE DRIVING 623

that newspapers provided a suitable outlet for understanding how society

recognizes, or is presented with, the causes of road rage. Results from the
analysis enable suggestions regarding public policy surrounding road rage
prevention and enforcement. These suggestions include applying a non-
traditional approach to crime prevention through environmental design
(CPTED) in the prevention of what appears to be one of our most recent
social problems.
Similar to many developing social issues, many questions currently exist
surrounding road rage. For example, there remain inconsistencies regarding
a clear definition of road rage, the frequency of road rage, and effective meth-
ods of road rage prevention. The present study examines media portrayal of
the causes of road rage/aggressive driving while offering suggestions regard-
ing policy approaches to the problem. Specifically, the research observes the
noted causes of road rage as presented in several large newspapers. As road
rage is a relatively new issue that has received limited scholarly research cov-
erage, newspaper accounts of the causes of road rage are provided.
We do not suggest that noted causes of road rage as found in newspaper
coverage accurately reflect the causes of road rage in society. The purpose of
this research is to examine media depiction of the causes of road rage and not
to identify those factors that are most likely to cause road rage. We do not pro-
pose that road rage is most often caused by human behavior or environmental
causes simply because the media stresses one more than the other. Future re-
search in this area, however, should attempt to examine this issue with the
intent to direct our prevention/enforcement efforts in the correct direction—
an issue addressed below.

ROAD RAGE/AGGRESSIVE DRIVING

Prior to clearly understanding and/or measuring any social phenomena,

there must exist a clear definition of what constitutes the issue under study.
Thus, several have attempted to define road rage and aggressive driving. For
example, as of January 1999, members of the Dallas Police Department’s
Strategic Targeting Against Road Rage (STARR) program had issued 11,669
traffic tickets and made 575 arrests for speeding, swerving across lanes, tail-
gating, or running red lights—all symptoms of what they considered aggres-
sive driving (Lewis, 1999). However, officials with the program noted that
the biggest problem with the program is that road rage is hard to define. Their
enforcement practices suggested that they had a problem with aggressive
driving. A Department spokesman, however, asked, “But is it road rage?
624 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / September 2003

When does it become road rage? When someone is hurt? When someone is
killed?” (Lewis, 1999, p. 17A). The Dallas Police Department’s definition of
aggressive driving reflects those provided by the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), insurance agencies, and AAA, which sug-
gest that aggressive driving includes speeding, running a red light or stop
sign, failure to yield the right of way, or reckless driving (which could include
the first three violations, but police generally use it as a charge against drivers
whom they deem dangerous on the highways, including those who tailgate,
weave, or blind other drivers with high beams)(Bowles & Overberg, 1998).
Bowers (1997) suggested that, depending on the research group, law
enforcement agency, or psychologist consulted, aggressive driving can
embrace everything from incendiary road rage incidents to the more com-
monplace running of red lights and stop signs, speeding, lane-changing with-
out signaling, tailgating, obscene gestures, and even drunk driving.
According to Bowles and Overberg (1998), road rage is much more
extreme than aggressive driving—and much more rare. Experts use the term
to refer to physical assaults stemming from traffic disputes; it is an aggres-
sive-driving incident gone haywire. A near-accident becomes an argument
that turns to violence (Bowles & Overberg, 1998). A 1997 AAA study
defined road rage as an attack by one motorist against another stemming from
a traffic dispute (Jouzaitis, 1998).
Davis and Smith (1998) suggested,

Initially, the term ‘road rage’ was applied only when a motorist perpetrated an
act of criminal violence. But as the issue caught fire, the definition became less
clear. Many police agencies and news media began using the term to describe
all aggressive driving, such as weaving or tailgating. Then some extended it to
cover any misbehavior behind the wheel—from running a stop sign to drunken
driving. (p. B1)

“If we don’t know exactly what we’re talking about, how do we compare it to
anything else?” asked Arlington County, Virginia, Police Chief, Edward
Flynn. “Just because you change lanes without signaling doesn’t mean you
are about to perpetrate an act of road rage” (Davis & Smith, 1998, p. B1).
Robert Horan, Jr., Fairfax County’s chief prosecutor for more than 3
decades, said that, if there is an epidemic of aggressive driving it is not show-
ing up in court cases. However, he also suggested that there is so much confu-
sion that he does not even try to define such behavior (Davis & Smith, 1998).
Liz Neblett, a spokeswoman for the NHTSA, noted that “we don’t have
hard numbers,” but “aggressive driving is almost everything. It includes
weaving in and out of traffic, driving too closely, flashing your lights—all
 Burns & Katovich / EXAMINING ROAD RAGE/AGGRESSIVE DRIVING 625

kinds of stuff. Drinking, speeding, almost everything you can think of, can
be boiled down to aggressive driving behaviors” (Fumento, 1998, p. 16).
Despite inconsistency regarding a definition of road rage and aggressive driv-
ing, research groups have attempted to quantify the extent of the problem.

STATISTICS

“Every day we have the equivalent of a ValuJet crash on our highways”

(Tarrant, 1997, p. 1C). This quote is attributed to Stephanie Faul, communi-
cations director of the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, who also noted
that there is no consensus on how to define road rage, making statistics hard
to gather. Accordingly, senior vice president Williams noted, “It’s really sort
of hard to figure out if it’s increasing or if the reporting of it is increasing”
(Precker, 1998, p. 1C).
Several groups, however, have gathered statistics. According to the
NHTSA, 56% of respondents in a recent poll admitted to driving aggressively
at least part of the time (Young, 1998). Similarly, a study by AAA noted that
cases of road rage climbed 7% a year between 1990 and 1996 (Young, 1998).
The study suggested that, during this time period, there were 218 deaths and
12,610 injuries directly attributable to aggressive driving (Fumento, 1998).
The study indicated that, in 35% of the cases, a vehicle was used directly as a
weapon and that men between the ages 18 and 26 were most likely to be
involved in aggressive driving accidents (Moore & Glover, 1998). Another
survey by the group found that 90% of motorists encountered road rage dur-
ing 1996, but few drivers blamed themselves. Only 6% admitted to engag-
ing in such behavior (Jouzaitis, 1998). Similarly, Dr. Ricardo Martinez, head
of NHTSA, testified before Congress that about one third of auto crashes
and two thirds of all highway fatalities are associated with such driving as
weaving in and out of traffic, running red lights, and screaming and honking
(Dallas Morning News, 1997).
However, several criticized the findings regarding road rage incidents,
including Fumento (1998) who questioned the scientific rigor of the AAA
Foundation study and noted that Dr. Martinez’s testimony labeled almost
everything that causes accidents as aggressive driving.
Davis and Smith (1998) suggested that there may be no road rage epi-
demic, stating that, although law enforcement officials are writing more traf-
fic tickets, there is no empirical evidence to support the public perception that
aggressive driving is increasing or making roads more dangerous. To support
their argument, they stated that “federal records indicate that the nation’s
roads have never been safer, with the rates of traffic deaths, injuries and
crashes all in steady decline” (Davis & Smith, 1998, p. B1). They added,
626 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / September 2003

Many analysts believe the perception of rising danger on the highway—as

measured in public opinion polls—ballooned out of proportion because of a
combination of factors: a barrage of media reports stemming from a few bad
incidents, an enthusiastic response from police officials and the invention of a
catchy label: road rage. The most frightening examples of road rage remain
exceedingly rare. (Davis & Smith, 1998, p. B1)

Some researchers say that driver aggression could be on the rise even though
it has not shown up in statistics. They say, for example, that improved safety
features (e.g., air bags and better roads) could be related to the decrease in
injuries and crashes thereby masking a possible increase in aggressive driv-
ing (Davis & Smith, 1998).

PREVENTIONS

The federal government, among other groups, is involved in the preven-

tion of road rage. Ranking aggressive driving, for the first time, with drunken
driving and seat belt use as top highway safety issues, the Department of
Transportation recently gave $10 million to a dozen communities in a test to
battle aggressive driving. Campaigns have included more police patrols, tele-
vision monitors mounted on freeway overpasses, and even dummy cameras
at intersections to make drivers think they are being videotaped for running
red lights (Bowles & Overberg, 1998).
As occurs with most problematic social situations, the criminal justice
system has taken a role in the prevention of road rage. Various laws were
passed to address aggressive driving and road rage, increased penalties were
mandated for such behavior, and, accordingly, numerous police departments
implemented special task forces or performed crackdowns on erratic driving
behavior. “They used to give you the finger,” said Captain Larry Tolar of the
Colorado patrol, “but now they give you the trigger finger” (O’Driscoll,
1997, p. 3A). The Colorado patrol promotes the two-finger peace or victory
sign as a nonthreatening way to apologize to motorists and defuse potential
road rage.
The aforementioned STARR program, implemented by the Dallas Police
Department, is but one of many such programs being utilized by police
departments across the country. For example, utilizing a state grant to
increase the ticketing of aggressive drivers, Fairfax County, Virginia,
installed cameras to take pictures of cars running red lights and ticketed the
vehicles’ owners (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 1998). In addition,
officers in Pennsylvania use photo lasers, undetectable by radar devices, in
high-crash areas to nab aggressive truckers, and Phoenix police are one of
 Burns & Katovich / EXAMINING ROAD RAGE/AGGRESSIVE DRIVING 627

many departments using unmarked patrol cars to record aggressive drivers’

actions. Maryland officers use covert vehicles, including a $400,000 Ford
Bronco that packs lasers, video equipment, and cameras to attack aggressive
driving, whereas Colorado state troopers are de-emphasizing the stopping of
motorists just for speeding and concentrating more on the aggressive behav-
ior that often goes with it (e.g., tailgating, weaving through traffic, unsafe
lane changes, and failure to yield).
Despite inconsistencies in defining road rage/aggressive driving and
empirical research suggesting that it may or may not be increasing, people
remain concerned about safety on the roadways, and law enforcement agen-
cies and legislators are taking action.

METHOD

We analyzed newspaper articles largely because of their impact on Ameri-

cans, their widespread readership, and several significant research findings.
For example, several suggest that stories about violent crime are the most
widely consumed by the general public (Antunes & Hurley, 1977; Ditton &
Duffy, 1983; Gorelick, 1989; Sherizen, 1978), and Surette (1998) noted
crime-related newspaper articles are read by a greater percentage of subscrib-
ers than other news topics. He added that the print medium tends to affect
reader beliefs more than television largely because of their being factual and
analytical (Surette, 1998).
Specifically, all newspaper articles containing the terms road rage or
aggressive driving were collected from three major newspapers between
May 2, 1985 (the date the term first appeared in print in these outlets), and
May 1, 1999. A total of 390 articles were collected from The New York Times,
The Dallas Morning News, and Los Angeles Times. These newspapers were
selected because of their wide circulation and representation of the eastern,
central, and western regions of the United States, respectively. Although each
of the 390 articles contained the terms road rage and/or aggressive driving,
not all articles provided information concerning the causes of such behavior.
However, 152 different articles mentioned at least one cause with several arti-
cles including multiple causes. In all, the articles mentioned 512 causes of
road rage.
Both authors separately examined the articles and placed each noted cause
of road rage into one of two categories: those related to human behavior/
actions and those related to the structure of the environment. Of concern was
the frequency of noted causes of road rage that could be considered an
628 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / September 2003

internal, pathological, or agent-related problem (e.g., something occurring

within the individual causing road rage) as opposed to external, environmen-
tal causes (e.g., there are no existing problems within the individual, how-
ever, external/environmental factors cause the individual to experience road
rage). In other words, in the former, an internal mechanism drives the individ-
ual to behave in a deviant manner (rendering formal social control as a likely
cure), whereas in the latter, the behavior can be controlled simply through
altering the environment (e.g., offering additional avenues of public mass
transit).
Causes related to human nature, for example, included driver behavior,
frustration, rudeness, tardiness, time constraints, lack of courtesy, and so
forth. Causes of road rage related to the environmental structure included
gridlock, traffic congestion, suburban sprawl, poorly designed highways/
roads, an increasing number of drivers on the road, and so forth. The authors
reached agreement regarding the categorization of all noted causes of road
rage largely because of the straightforwardness of the information under
examination. Tables 1 and 2 provide a comprehensive list of the noted causes
of road rage.

FINDINGS

In general, newspaper coverage of the causes of road rage suggests that

human behavior is most often responsible for such incidents. For example,
71.9% of the noted causes of road rage found in the newspaper articles were
related to human factors, whereas 28.1% of the causes were attributed to
environmental factors. The most common human-related causes provided in
the accounts included driver behavior (n = 185), which accounted for more
than half (50.3%) of the total number of human-related causes and 36.1% of
all noted causes of road rage; driver actions (n = 50), which accounted for
13.6% of all noted human-related causes and 9.8% of all causes of road rage;
and time constraints (n = 23), which constituted 6.3% of all noted human-
related causes and 4.5% of all causes of road rage. Table 1 presents these
findings.
With regard to the noted environmental causes of road rage, traffic/
congestion (n = 58) was most often noted, accounting for 40.3% of all noted
environmental causes of road rage and 11.3% of all causes of such behavior;
an increasing number of people driving and more people, in general, were
noted as the cause of road rage in 12 instances, accounting for 8.3% of all
noted environmental causes of road rage and 2.3% of all causes; and, finally,
poor engineering and poor road design were noted as the cause of road rage
 Burns & Katovich / EXAMINING ROAD RAGE/AGGRESSIVE DRIVING 629

TABLE 1
Human-Related Causes of Road Rage/Aggressive Driving
as Noted in Newspapers

% of % of
Human-Related All
n Causes Causes

Driving behavior (e.g., tailgating) 185 50.3 36.1

Driver actions (e.g., gestures) 50 13.6 9.8
Time constraints 23 6.3 4.5
Culture 19 5.2 3.7
Bad day/anger 13 3.5 2.5
Human nature 12 3.3 2.3
Winning 11 3.0 2.1
Frustration 10 2.7 2.0
Stress 9 2.4 1.8
Testosterone/male aggressiveness 6 1.6 1.2
Tardiness 5 1.4 1.0
Cell phones 4 1.1 0.8
Hate radio/traffic broadcasts 3 0.8 0.6
Lack of enforcement/speed limits 3 0.8 0.6
Mental problems 2 0.5 0.4
Pain/discomfort 2 0.5 0.4
Anonymity in vehicles 2 0.5 0.4
Worried 1 0.3 0.2
Hungry 1 0.3 0.2
Longer work day 1 0.3 0.2
Need to express ourselves publicly 1 0.3 0.2
Coffee 1 0.3 0.2
Drugs/alcohol 1 0.3 0.2
Family obligations 1 0.3 0.2
Holiday season 1 0.3 0.2
Noise 1 0.3 0.2
Total N = 368 72.0

11 times, accounting for 7.6% of all noted environmental causes and 2.1% of
all causes of road rage. Table 2 presents these findings.
A limitation of the data concerns the possible overlap of several catego-
ries. For example, tardiness and time constraints could very well be related to
one another. If one wakes up late for work and subsequently faces a time con-
straint, it would be difficult to specifically attribute road rage to either one of
these actions. However, the data were recorded specifically according to how
information was provided in the newspaper accounts thus, hopefully, limit-
ing subjectivity in the data.
630 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / September 2003

TABLE 2
Environment-Related Causes of Road Rage/Aggressive Driving
as Noted in Newspapers

% of % of
Environmental All
n Causes Causes

Traffic/congestion 58 40.3 11.3

More people driving/people in general 12 8.3 2.3
Poor engineering/road design 11 7.6 2.1
Road construction 8 5.6 1.6
Weather 8 5.6 1.6
Traffic signals 6 4.2 1.2
Commuting 6 4.2 1.2
Lack of mass transit 5 3.5 1.0
Gridlock 5 3.5 1.0
Road conditions 5 3.5 1.0
Rush hours 4 2.8 0.8
Lack of roads 4 2.8 0.8
Pedestrians 4 2.8 0.8
Sprawling neighborhoods 3 2.1 0.6
Carpool lanes 2 1.4 0.4
Tolls 2 1.4 0.4
Immigration 1 0.7 0.2
Total N = 144 28.1

Another limitation of the data concerns differentiating driver behavior

from driver actions. Although both categories clearly subscribe to the
human-related causes of road rage, some may question the method used to
differentiate the terms in the analysis of the human-related and environmen-
tal structure-related causes of road rage. For instance, driving behavior could
easily constitute driver actions and vice versa. However, for the purposes of
the present analysis, instances of driving behavior were limited to those
actions specifically related to driving an automobile (e.g., weaving in and out
of lanes, tailgating, flashing one’s headlights, speeding, bumping another’s
car, etc.). Instances of driver actions involved those actions not specifically
related to one’s driving performance (e.g., obscene gestures, verbal assaults,
aiming a weapon, shaking one’s head, etc.). Although these actions could,
arguably, be collapsed into one category, we chose to analyze them in the
manner noted above for the purpose of a greater understanding of newspaper
portrayal of the causes of road rage.
It should be noted that information was selected from all types of news-
paper articles including editorials, advice columnists, guest columnists, and
so forth. One limitation with such an approach concerns the validity of the
 Burns & Katovich / EXAMINING ROAD RAGE/AGGRESSIVE DRIVING 631

proposed causes of road rage. However, as the present research is concerned

with media depiction of road rage, all types of newspaper articles were
included. One could argue that, regardless of where or how the information
was presented, the identified causes of road rage nevertheless appeared in a
media outlet.

DISCUSSION

Based on the present results, it appears that road rage is attributed as a

function of human behavior to a much greater extent than as a function of
external cues. We see more evidence of the problem driver. Again, we do not
propose to examine the media’s accuracy with regard to depicting the causes
of road rage. Because of the absence of empirical research examining the fre-
quency with which various factors influence one’s driving behavior, it
remains extremely difficult to determine those factors that are most likely to
cause road rage. Despite these difficulties, it appears that society’s preferred
approach to dealing with the road-raging problem driver largely involves
punitive sanctions (as noted by the accelerated rate of ticketing such offend-
ers, police crackdowns, and special task forces specifically devoted to appre-
hending such drivers). Although good intentions typically reside in such
responses, several question the effectiveness of punitive reactions in attempt-
ing to control or reform human behavior (e.g., Currie, 1985; Kappeler,
Blumberg, & Potter, 2000; Shannon, 1982).
Bowles and Overberg’s (1998) statement regarding society’s vulnerability
to increased traffic congestion supports the suggestion that road rage is being
addressed through targeting of human behavior:

As the population grew and the number of women entering the workplace dou-
bled in two decades to 61 million in 1995, the number of commuters soared
accordingly. There were 89 million cars on American roads, in driveways and
on sales lots in 1970. Today there are more than 150 million. (p. 17)

Accordingly, the NHTSA (2000) noted, “Studies have shown that the number
of motor vehicles registered rose 19 percent over the past ten years, reflecting
an increase in population. The number of licensed drivers rose 12 percent
during the same period” (p. 4). They suggested,

This means that as highway use increases, congestion is likely to continue to

get worse. During the past ten years, the surface road miles increased only 1.1
percent whereas total miles traveled has increased 40 percent. Highway
632 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / September 2003

construction is not keeping up with the growth in the general population, or the
increase in the number of licensed drivers, vehicles registered, and highway
miles driven. (NHTSA, 2000, p. 4)

Controlling driver behavior is the popular approach to addressing road rage/

aggressive driving. The facilitation of commuting is another.

CONCLUSION: CRIME PREVENTION

THROUGH TRAFFIC FACILITATION

Regardless of the validity, reliability, and accuracy of road rage statistics

and definitions, violent acts occur on our roadways, and officials in law
enforcement and public administration have taken notice and responded.
With such official (and intensive) responsiveness to these behaviors, the
question remains: What causes road rage/aggressive driving? Although lim-
ited scholarly research has addressed the frequency with which particular
factors cause or encourage road rage/aggressive driving, numerous causal
explanations are identified in the media, government reports, and various
other outlets. These explanations generally fall into one of two categories:
individualistic factors/behaviors and environmental conditions or cues.
Despite such varied explanations for these behaviors, prevention focuses pri-
marily on controlling the individual (as evidenced in the discussion of
enforcement efforts). However, some suggest that the cure may lie elsewhere.
Jeffery (1990) suggested that “the future of crime control in the United
States depends on crime prevention technologies, not more prisons or crimi-
nal laws. Prevention must replace punishment and revenge as the basis for
crime control” (p. 421). Based on the aforementioned policy proposals and
enforcement actions, it appears that public administrators and law enforce-
ment officials are more willing to address road rage as a problem of individ-
ual behavior than as a problem of environmental conditions. In accordance
with Jeffery’s statement and the suggestions that road rage/aggressive driv-
ing is caused, in part, by environmental factors, it could be argued that
researchers, law enforcement personnel, policymakers, and others should
consider the role of the environment in the prevention of road rage/aggressive
driving.
Recent approaches to prevent crime have incorporated the ideals of
CPTED, which is based largely on the concepts provided by the Chicago
School in the early 1900s. From gated communities and homes to increased
lighting in stairwells and parking lots, CPTED is receiving deserved
 Burns & Katovich / EXAMINING ROAD RAGE/AGGRESSIVE DRIVING 633

consideration in our society. Jeffery (1990) suggested that one of the more
successful approaches to crime prevention involves comprehension of the
interplay between physical design/physical environment and the physical
organism. He stressed the importance of studying the human-made environ-
ment and its relationship to physical organisms in trying to comprehend
crime prevention efforts. Accordingly, Brantingham and Brantingham
(1991) argued that the discipline of criminology has recently begun to attract
a wide range of scholars from varied disciplines including environmental
psychologists, geographers, and urban planners.
The CPTED framework can provide some clues and suggestions to
change driving environments and decrease incidents that could perpetuate
aggression on the highways. For instance, Griswold (1984) noted that the
broad or general appearance of any specific environment correlates with
prosocial or antisocial behaviors. Although Griswold specifically focused on
improving appearances of an environment to prevent burglary in commercial
areas, his findings can be applied to highway systems. Keeping highways
clean, maintaining visible boundary markers, reminding drivers to be cau-
tious, and posting useful information in relation to destinations and exits can
maintain driver faith in a working system.
Furthermore, although many who have focused on CPTED have empha-
sized the correlation between physical design and major crimes such as bur-
glary and breaking and entering (see Rosenbaum, Lurigio, & Davis, 1998, for
more offerings), the physical design of highway systems could have an
impact on emergent acts such as aggressive driving. Highways that allow for
more space for carpools and can clearly separate access to local exits from ex-
press lanes could do more to positively differentiate drivers. Positive differ-
entiation of drivers, as inspired by highway design, can remind all drivers of
their primary identities as responsible users of vehicles.
However, we do not wish to suggest that CPTED is the ultimate answer (or
last chance) for safer driving conditions. CPTED, in conjunction with
responsible urban planning and law enforcement, can be useful to encourage
drivers to concentrate on maintaining civility (see McGarrell, Giacomazzi, &
Thurman, 1997). As the driver’s self is the key intervening variable, it is
important to emphasize driver responsibility. Even so, we suggest that taking
institutional responsibility to prevent antisocial acts can be cues in and of
themselves for individual driver responsibility.
As such, CPTED seems appropriate to deterring and preventing a portion
of road rage/aggressive driving incidents. Evidence suggests that some
instances of road rage/aggressive driving can be addressed through alteration
of the environment. For example, former vice president Al Gore’s
634 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / September 2003

aforementioned comment regarding traffic jams provides support for the

notion that environmental structure plays a role in these acts. Arguably, some
of the resources being allocated toward police task forces and special vehi-
cles to address road rage might be better spent on travel facilitation and
improving the roadways, including better road design, more efficient road
construction, increased carpool lanes, and more pleasant and efficient forms
of public transportation. In other words, if we continue to utilize our societal
“get tough on crime” approach in our defense against road rage, it is possible
we could overlook a substantial cause of the problem. Applied in a nontradi-
tional sense, CPTED could help prevent road rage.
Future research could more closely observe the relationship between true
CPTED and road rage through applying the proximate goals of CPTED (e.g.,
Kushmuk & Whittenmore, 1981) to road rage prevention. For instance, fur-
ther research could observe the impact of penalties that suspend the driving
privileges of those guilty of road rage as a form of access control. Accord-
ingly, one could observe road rage hotlines in offering surveillance, the
encouragement of highway drivers to consider alternative forms of transpor-
tation as activity support, and increasing the penalties associated with road
rage as motivation reinforcement. We choose to apply CPTED to road rage in
a nontraditional manner simply because traditional CPTED efforts involve
more restrictive, or appropriately so, preventive actions. We hold that some
acts of road rage can be prevented through altering the environment to facili-
tate traffic.
Applied to road rage, CPTED could, theoretically, prevent reckless driv-
ing, although the prevention would be accomplished through travel facilita-
tion—in other words, crime prevention through traffic facilitation. Through
facilitating quicker, more convenient travel, it is argued that we can prevent a
portion of some crimes such as road rage and aggressive driving. However,
this approach can only work in those instances where the crimes are attribut-
able to environmental issues.
Substantial public policy has addressed road rage/aggressive driving from
a punitive approach. Surette (1998) argued that in addressing crime control
policies, the media typically portray the only options as consisting of more
police, more laws, more prisons, and longer sentences. Although the present
research does not suggest that a nontraditional application of CPTED is the
answer, it is hoped that, by highlighting the issues and addressing road rage,
we, as a society, can approach it with greater openness.
 Burns & Katovich / EXAMINING ROAD RAGE/AGGRESSIVE DRIVING 635

REFERENCES

Antunes, G. E., & Hurley, P. (1977). The representation of criminal events in Houston’s two daily
newspapers. Journalism Quarterly, 54, 756-760.
Bowers, B. (1997, November). Getting aggressive about road rage. Best’s Review, 98(7), 61-64.
Bowles, S., & Overberg, P. (1998, November 23). Aggressive driving: A road well-traveled. USA
Today, p. 17A.
Brantingham, P., & Brantingham, P. (Eds.). (1991). Environmental Criminology. Prospect
Heights, IL: Waveland.
Burns, R., & Crawford, C. (1999). School shootings, the media, and public fear: Ingredients for a
moral panic. Crime, Law and Social Change, 32(2), 147-168.
Currie, E. (1985). Confronting crime: An American challenge. New York: Pantheon Books.
Dallas Morning News. (1997, July 18). ‘Road rage’ blamed for rise in highway deaths. Author,
p. 8A.
Davis, P., & Smith, L. (1998, November 29). A crisis that may not exist is all the rage. The Wash-
ington Post, p. B1.
Ditton, J., & Duffy, J. (1983). Bias in the newspaper reporting of crime news. British Journal
of Criminology, 23, 159-165.
Fumento, M. (1998). ‘Road rage’ versus reality. The Atlantic Monthly, 282, 12-17.
Glassner, B. (1999). The culture of fear. New York: Basic Books.
Gorelick, S. (1989). Join our war: The construction of ideology in a newspaper crime-fighting
campaign. Crime and Delinquency, 35, 421-436.
Griswold, D. (1984). Crime prevention and commercial burglary: A time series analysis. Jour-
nal of Criminal Justice, 12, 493-501.
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. (1998). Road rage. Status Report, 33(10), pp. 1-3, 6.
Jeffery, C. R. (1990). Criminology: An interdisciplinary approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Jouzaitis, C. (1998, February 18). AAA will ask drivers to cool it on ‘road rage.’ USA Today,
p. 3A.
Kappeler, V., Blumberg, M., & Potter, G. (2000). The mythology of crime and criminal justice
(3rd ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
Kushmuk, J., & Whittenmore, S. (1981). A reevaluation of the Crime Prevention Through Envi-
ronmental Design Program in Portland, Oregon. Washington, DC: National Institute of
Justice.
Lewis, T. (1999, January 18). Civilizing the highways: Officers aim to stop aggressive drivers
before violence starts. The Dallas Morning News, p. 17A.
McGarrell, E., Giacomazzi, A., & Thurman, Q. (1997). Neighborhood disorder, integration, and
the fear of crime. Justice Quarterly, 14, 479-500.
Moore, S., & Glover, S. (1998, January 15). Two killed in possible road rage crash. Los Angeles
Times, p. B1.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2000, March). Aggressive driving enforce-
ment: Strategies for implementing best practices (DOT HS 809 031). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Transportation.
O’Driscoll, P. (1997, December 9). In hot pursuit of road rage. USA Today, p. 3A.
Page, S. (1999, January 11). Gore can take sprawl issue to 2000: Proposal is likely to win favor.
USA Today, p. 3A.
Precker, M. (1998, August 26). ‘Road rage’: High noon or hyperbole? The Dallas Morning
News, p. 1C.
 636 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / September 2003

Rosenbaum, D., Lurigio, A., & Davis, R. (1998). The prevention of crime: Social and situational
strategies. Belmont, CA: West/Wadsworth.
Shannon, L. (1982). Reassessing the relationship of adult criminal careers to juvenile careers
(Rep. No. NCJ 77744). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Sherizen, S. (1978). Social creation of crime news: All the news fitted to print. In C. Winick
(Ed.), Deviance and mass media (pp. 203-224). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Smith, T. (1999, Febraury 7). Tyson, a raging bull, faces bewildered future. The New York Times,
p. 1.
Surette, R. (1998). Media, crime, and criminal justice: Images and realities (2nd ed.). Belmont,
CA: West/Wadsworth.
Tarrant, D. (1997, September 2). Driving nuts: Too many people losing control behind the wheel.
The Dallas Morning News, p. 1C.
Thomas, W. I., & Thomas, D. S. (1928). The child in America. New York: Knopf.
Young, M. (1998, July 12). Driven mad: Aggression behind the wheel gains momentum on busy
city freeways. The Dallas Morning News, p. 1A.

View publication stats