Contents

Aggressive Driving Prevention Course for Law Enforcement
The Three Es: Engineering, Enforcement, Education
Enforcement and Education: A Necessary Partnership--FAQ
Types of TEE CARDS
The New Driver Education for the Year 2000
RoadRageous Video Course
Definitions of Aggressive Driving--Review of the Language in Aggressive Driving Legislation
Rating  the Strength of Language in Legislation
Listing of Complaints--What makes me mad--Motorists Speak Out
Top Ten Road Rage Hot Spots
San Antonio Police Department's Cool Operator Program
News Articles About TEE-cards
Letters from Readers

International Association of chiefs of Police

IACP Resolution on Aggressive Driving

WHEREAS, aggressive driving can be defined as “committing a sequence of moving traffic violations in a short period of time which occur in the presence of other vehicles and endangers persons and/or property”; and

WHEREAS, aggressive driving frequently leads to the assaultive behavior that has become commonly known as “road rage”; and

WHEREAS, traffic crash statistics show that aggressive driving habits are causal factors in a significant number of traffic deaths and injuries; and

WHEREAS, public opinion polls indicate that citizens fear aggressive drivers and support increased police traffic enforcement; and

WHEREAS, failure to address aggressive driving undermines public confidence in law enforcement and promotes disrespect for the law; now therefore be it

RESOLVED, that the International Association of Chiefs of Police urges all law enforcement agencies to adopt strategies to curb the incidence of aggressive driving; and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is encouraged to develop incentive programs that provide additional highway safety funds for intensified traffic enforcement efforts to jurisdictions with laws that enable law enforcement to use technology; as well as promote research into the psychodynamics of aggressive driving; and that prosecutors and courts are encouraged to treat aggressive driving as the danger to public safety that it is; and that copies of this resolution be forwarded to the National Highway Safety Administration; National Sheriffs’ Association, the National Center for State Courts; and the National District Attorneys Association.

original here

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA  Rufus King III, Chief Judge March 23, 2001

Administrative Order No. 01-07 It is hereby ORDERED that in cases where a violator is convicted in traffic court the person will be required to complete educational programs from the American Institute for Public Safety. This referral process does not change any court administrative procedures. Records will be electronically transferred for processing the violator through the educational programs. Violators who are convicted in traffic court of a coded offense that carries 2-3 points against their driving record are required to take the "Aware Driver" Defensive Driving Course. Violators who are convicted in traffic court of a coded offense that carries 4 to 8 points are required to take the aggressive driver course, "RoadRageous". Violators who are convicted in traffic court of a coded offense that carries more than 8 points will be required to take both courses. This order applies to violators who are residents and non-residents of the District of Columbia. This order shall be effective May 1, 2001.

original here

The Officer Workbook and Instructor Guide are recommended for use in conjunction with RoadRageous Aggressive Driver Video Course (American Institute for Public Safety) Road Rage and Aggressive Driving, (Prometheus Books, Amherst, N.Y.)

Public safety officers in the 21st century have more qualifications because advanced training is required to meet the new demands on officers' technical knowledge. The federal government requires certification training for officers who use Radar Speed Detection devices, and new certification training is required for those with access to crime information centers that maintain criminal records. Some states require police officers to have annual training to maintain their powers of arrest. This is the age of aggressive driving and officers have a new opportunity to play the dual role of traffic enforcement and education. State legislatures began passing new aggressive driving laws in 1997 using a variety of definitions for violations. Some laws use vague language that makes it difficult for officers to accurately identify the target behavior. Traffic officers now need specialized training in the technicalities of aggressive driving laws, aggressive driving behavior, and prevention :

• What language does the law use to define aggressive driving?
• How serious is the problem nationally?
• What police initiatives have been tried?
• What can law enforcement do to educate the public about aggressive driving?
• What are TEE Cards for Traffic Enforcement Education and when do officers hand them out?
• How do officers deal with aggressive drivers during a traffic stop?
• What are good interaction principles to follow during a traffic stop?
• What are the causes and how can we prevent emotionally impaired driving?

As new aggressive driving laws are applied, law enforcement is increasingly called upon to testify in court in aggressive driving cases. Officers are exposed to more angry people during traffic stops for aggressive violations, yet they are expected to take more verbal abuse and show greater restraint in the use of force. Special training in aggressive driving prevention has become a practical necessity for all security and peace officers involved in traffic control.

The dual role of law enforcement as Traffic Enforcer and Educator is supported by the federal government as one of the new ways to contain aggressive driving. In order to enhance public support and cooperation, officers need to be prepared to adequately explain their dual role without lecturing or preaching. This workbook helps to accomplish this by:

• Providing a better understanding of the aggressive driver mentality

• Providing appropriate educational responses to motorists

This Officer Workbook is designed for either self-study or classroom use to provide specialized training on aggressive driving prevention. An Instructor Guide is available for classroom use in Police Academies or officer training centers. The course was first used in March 2000 by the San Antonio Police Department in conjunction with the Aggressive Driver Video Course RoadRageous distributed by the American Institute for Public Safety. It is also recommended for use in conjunction with the authors' book, Road Rage and Aggressive Driving (Amherst, N.Y: Prometheus Books, 2000). More information on the Web: DrDriving.org.

Leon James, Ph. D. and Diane Nahl, Ph.D.

For more information please email Dr. Leon James at DrDriving@DrDriving.org

Definition of Aggressive Driving

by Dr. Leon James

Aggressive driving is driving under the influence of impaired emotions. There are three categories of impaired emotions:

1. Impatience and Inattentiveness
2. Power Struggle
3. Recklessness and Road Rage

The majority of motorists drive in an emotionally impaired state at certain times. Some motorists drive in this state more often than others, and pose a serious risk to themselves and others. Driving violations can be identified by reference to these three categories of impaired emotions. Each category of impaired emotion leads to different types of traffic violations.

Category 1: Impatience and Inattentiveness

• Driving through red
• Speeding up to yellow
• Rolling stops
• Cutting corners or rolling over double line
• Blocking intersection
• Not yielding
• Improper lane change or weaving
• Driving 5 to 15 mph above limit

• Following too close
• Not signaling when required
• Erratically slowing down or speeding up
• Taking too long

Category 2: Power Struggle

• Blocking passing lane, refusing to move over
• Threatening or insulting by yelling, gesturing, honking repeatedly
• Tailgating to punish or coerce
• Cutting off in a duel
• Braking suddenly to retaliate

Category 3: Recklessness and Road Rage

• Driving drunk
• Pointing a gun or shooting
• Assaulting with the car or battering object
• Driving at very high speeds

Milwaukee aggressive driving study
may become national model

August 08, 2000   Associated Press

MILWAUKEE-- A one-of-its kind federal grant to combat road rage helped cut traffic accidents, and a program the city developed may become a model for addressing tailgating, speeding and running red lights nationwide, authorities say.

Milwaukee was a test case for federal officials looking for ways to reduce road rage incidents nationwide, and officials used a $500,000 grant to boost patrol units, purchase new traffic monitoring tools and launch a media campaign with slogans such as "The Rude Attitude Patrol."

(...)

State officials decided to fund anti-aggressive driving measures in other areas after a 1998 survey showed 89 percent of respondents witnessed aggressive driving the month before.

(...)

"After the first wave of ticketing, aggressive driving went way down, traffic crashes went down and it became harder to give out tickets," Dane County Sheriff's Sgt. Gordon Disch said.

(...)

For example, the fine for following too closely is $67.90, but upgrading the charge to reckless driving costs $227 plus six points on a license. Disorderly conduct fines can go up to $646, Munger said.

But educating drivers about the dangers of driving aggressively is even more effective than ticketing, Munger said.

"When people are pulled over, we tell them about the risks of escalating aggression," Munger said. "In an instant you can turn from villain to victim."

Last summer, Denise Koenigs, her husband and their two children were injured when a 53-year-old man who said they were driving too slow rammed their vehicle through two lanes of traffic into a ditch on Highway 60 near Hartford. Koenigs said she still has nightmares.

"For a long time it was very emotional just to get in the the car," she said. "Now I'm much more alert and cautious. I'd rather be ten minutes late than dead."

Time and traffic jams top the list of excuses for aggressive driving, said John Evans, director of the state Bureau of Transportation Safety, which set up a road rage task force three years ago.

"Anyone who is 15 minutes late is a prime candidate," he said.

(...)

A study done for the National Highway Transportation Safety Board found during the six-month enforcement period:

-- Crashes in Milwaukee went down 12.3 percent in program areas compared to the same six months the year before. Crashes citywide decreased 4.8 percent.

-- Injuries and fatalities in Milwaukee were down 11.3 percent compared to the same time in 1998. Citywide, injuries and deaths were down 6.6 percent.

-- City police wrote 12,378 more tickets for aggressive driving, a 29 percent increase over the previous year. Those tickets did not include speeding.

-- Sheriff's patrols on Milwaukee's freeways wrote 2,700 tickets for aggressive driving, excluding speeding, a 55 percent increase over ticket-writing from March to September 1998, Milwaukee County Sheriff's Capt. Randy Tylke said.

"That's 2,700 more people who wouldn't have realized they were being watched for aggressive driving. Generally they'll stop once they get a ticket," Tylke said.

Unmarked squad cars are key to catching aggressive drivers because "you have to sneak up on them," Tylke said. During the first week, an officer in an unmarked car had a tomato thrown at him. The driver was ticketed for tailgating and littering, Tylke said.

Besides more patrols, police blanketed the media with anti-aggressive driving mini-campaigns such as the "Basket Patrol," which targeted drivers who "weave" in traffic, and the "Flasher Patrol," to enforce using turn signals.

The "Rude Attitude Patrol" got so much attention a civil liberties attorney appeared on television to explain that rudeness is not against the law, Tylke said.

Nationally, NHTSA plans to base other anti-aggressive driving programs on Milwaukee's strategies, said Joe Ann O'Hara, of the agency's traffic law enforcement division.

(...)

"We found that if you do a good job on enforcement, you'll spend less time investigating accidents," Kuhlman said.

orignal article here

Patrolling roadways from the air

Aggressive drivers see red twice in Minnesota

By: Anna Cornish

Date: 2000-09-01

Anna Cornish is a Public Information Officer with the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Office of Communications.

The Minnesota State Patrol is implementing a new means of apprehending aggressive drivers—shooting them (with a video camera, of course). As it heats up outside, so do drivers' tempers on roadways in Minnesota, USA. This flux in dangerous driving behavior has the Minnesota State Patrol going to great lengths to address the issue of aggressive driving.

"Aggressive driving is a lethal cocktail of dangerous driving behavior—speeding, following too closely, running stop lights and signs, weaving in and out of traffic, and passing on the shoulder," says Minnesota State Patrol Lieutenant Mark Peterson. "Speed alone is cited as a contributing factor in approximately 30 percent of all fatal crashes. Combining this grim statistic with other aggressive driving behavior is not only risky—it's deadly."

The Minnesota State Patrol is targeting areas in the Twin Cities area known for aggressive driving with troops on the ground and in the air. Aircraft are equipped with FLIR Systems Inc U6000 Series Thermal Imagers. These cameras include both a daylight video camera and a thermal imager for use at times of low light or darkness. The pictures and images from the cameras are transmitted to a portable receiver in a police squad car on the ground. During the operation, fixed wing aircraft pilots spot aggressive driving behavior, notify officers on the ground, who in turn apprehend the driver.

The process doesn't end there. After the ground trooper apprehends the driver, the offender is afforded the opportunity to review his/her actions by watching the footage shot from the fixed-wing aircraft above. Patrolling roadways from the air has been a common practice by the Minnesota State Patrol for many years, but not until recently has there been a direct link from an aircraft video camera to a car-based monitor.

Twin cities media will also receive copies of the aggressive driving and eventual arrest footage. The goal of this operation is to end aggressive driving through education, enforcement, and a high prosecution percentage. This new technology provides actual footage of dangerous driving behavior—not of a stranger on a television screen, but by you, in your car. Accountability is a powerful deterrent to intentional hazardous behavior—especially when that behavior is on the six o' clock news.

original article here

Learner drivers to get 'road rage' practice

Learner drivers in Singapore have a new test to pass before getting their license - mock road rage attacks from angry drivers.

Before learners can tear-up the L-plates, they will have to pass the 'practical' - a confrontation with a mad, red-faced bulging-eyed 'motorist' to check how they handle verbal abuse and physical intimidation during road rage incidents.

Jittery new drivers, often the target of abuse from more experienced motorists, will get the mock 'stress' tests as a new part of the country's Highway Code.

As well as learning the 'mirror, signal, manoeuvre' mantra, they will be taught how to behave under road rage conditions; how NOT to react; and advised to count to 10 if they feel the red mist descending.

The new curriculum, to be introduced by Singapore's road transport department next month, will also help learner drivers to deal with accidents, emergencies and driving in heavy traffic through cities.

Mr K Balakrishnan, a spokesman for the department, said: "They will now be taught how to control their emotions in an enacted scenario."

"When facing situations like these, drivers are most likely to feel anger, shock, panic or confusion," he told the New Straits Times.

A recent case of road-rage in the sub-tropical country resulted in a road bully, a karaoke lounge waiter, being jailed for 10 years for killing a factory worker following an accident.

Andrew Howard, head of road safety at the Automobile Association, said the 'practical' will probably not catch on in the UK, but road rage is a problem the world over.

"The British Highway Code has begun to have little bits of warnings about keeping your cool and being courteous," he said. "It is all about common sense, being courteous to others and calm.

original here

An effective partnership must be created between the three Es--Engineering, Enforcement, Education.  This partnership can work to maintain a highway learning atmosphere that will support  in the public's mind, the concept of Lifelong Driver Self-improvement.

Drivers in traffic need to be taught to act as a team with a structure that requires

1. voluntary cooperation for a collective traffic goal among otherwise independent strangers
2. voluntary obedience to traffic control regulations
3. commitment to achieving high predictability in motorist behavior
4. lifelong participation in a Quality Driving Circle (QDC)

"TEE CARDS" stands for Traffic Enforcement Education Cards.    They are created by DrDriving for law enforcement officers who make a traffic stop for aggressive driving.  The traffic stop can  be a window of opportunity  for delivering Aggressive Driving Prevention Information at a time when the motorist is especially focused to receive and listen to such information.  The officer chooses from one of several categories of aggressive driving information cards and hands it to the motorist.  The purpose is to build the motorist's awareness of what the law considers aggressive and which behaviors were observed by the officer.  The officer chooses whether or not to issue a citation.

TEE CARDS express and promote DrDriving's approach called Driving Psychology.  This is the idea that driving habits occur in three domains:  emotions, thoughts, and sensory-motor actions.  These three must act together to be effective.    TEE CARDS can also be used in other settings such as

• law enforcement education
• public schools
• driving schools
• safety clubs
• court mandated classes
• family or individual efforts at Aggressive Driving Prevention.
• driver self-improvement programs
• commercial fleets
• quality driving circles
• public information programs
• radio campaigns
• posters
• books and readers

The educational objectives for TEE CARDS are:

1. to serve as a reminder and warning at a time the motorist is focused on the officer
2. to give motorists a feedback assessment on their mistakes
3. to point out emotionally intelligent alternatives to aggressive driving
4. to strengthen a driver's sense of social responsibility to other drivers
5. to provide facts and statistics about the consequences of aggressive driving
6. to promote the idea that anger management takes serious practice
7. to provide information on self-improvement activities for drivers
8. to promote acceptance of a personal Lifelong Driver Self-improvement Plan
9. to promote acceptance of Quality Driving Circles or QDCs
10. to help de-glamorize aggressive driving
11. to reinforce appropriate driving attitudes to children passengers riding in the stopped car
12. to remind parents of their responsibility to model appropriate motorist behavior for the sake of their children's future driving attitudes

Each card stands as a true mini-lesson unit that takes into account three types of behavioral objectives:

• affective objectives (regarding attitude, responsibility, emotions, alertness)
• cognitive objectives (involving knowledge, judgment, emotional intelligence)
• sensori-motor objectives (competence in vision and vehicle control).

San Antonio Police Department uses DrDriving's RoadRageous Video Course in conjunction with the Officer Workbook to train its traffic officers in the dual role of Traffic Enforcer and Traffic Educator.  Dr. James is a consultant to the aggressive driving survey conducted by SAPD in March, 2000.

Definition of "aggressive driving"
(Arizona Law)

For aggressive driving, a person must be caught violating the state's ''reasonable and prudent speed'' law, plus at least two of the following:

• Failing to obey a traffic control device.
• Making an unsafe lane change.
• Overtaking and passing a vehicle on the right by driving off the           pavement.
• Following too closely.
• Failing to yield.

The driver also must create an immediate danger to another person or vehicle.

Aggressive driving is a Class 1 misdemeanor that can carry a six-month jail sentence, a fine up to $2,500, plus a 30-day suspension of driver's license and 8 points on the driver's record. original here

If you are struggling with aggressive driving a new car may settle you down. Check out Midway used car dealerships in Phoenix AZ to find the calming car you need.

Original article at:  http://www.dot.gov/affairs/1999/12299sp.htm

SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION RODNEY E. SLATER
AGGRESSIVE DRIVING AND THE LAW A SYMPOSIUM
JANUARY 22, 1999
WASHINGTON, D.C.

President Clinton and Vice President Gore have made safety this Administration’s highest transportation priority --investing $6.8 billion over the next six years to increase safety on our nation’s highways.

Your attendance and commitment to finding workable solutions regarding aggressive driving shows that safety, too, is your highest priority.

Aggressive driving is one of the leading safety concerns among America’s drivers. In the survey we are releasing today, more than 60 percent of drivers believe unsafe driving --including speeding --by others was a major personal threat to them and to their families.

And as Secretary of Transportation I have met with the survivors of crashes caused by aggressive driving.

Speed --improper lane changes --improper passing --red light running --operating a vehicle in a manner which endangers or is likely to endanger others all fall under the category of aggressive driving.

Who are these aggressive drivers? Unfortunately, about two-thirds of the drivers in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) survey admit to unsafe driving. Why? --late for meetings --traffic congestion --frustration --we all, at one time or another, have either purposefully or unwittingly taken on the role of an aggressive driver.

We can and must do better --which is why we are here today. We must raise the bar on safety. It requires a three-pronged approach --education --enforcement --and strong judicial efforts to prevent this life-threatening behavior from occurring again and again.

A majority of drivers from the NHTSA survey believe that the amount of law enforcement is about right. At least twenty-two states and the District of Columbia currently have active programs to reduce aggressive driving violations.

The Federal government, law enforcement agencies and local communities are partnering through programs like "Smooth Operator" to combat aggressive driving and we are seeing results.

Right now in Wisconsin, a $476,000 NHTSA grant is helping the Milwaukee Police Department to reduce aggressive driving. This 18-month demonstration project, the first in the nation, will provide information and enforcement results to law enforcement agencies across the country. I am pleased to announce we will expand the project into two additional communities later this year.

The Federal Highway Administration next month will release the results of a very successful, $600,000 "Red Light Running" campaign. Through education and enforcement, crashes at 31 sites throughout the nation dropped significantly --some by as much as 43 percent. Communities are so delighted with the results they are continuing the campaign indefinitely --and without federal funding.

(...) We have a great opportunity, through this symposium, to formulate a national policy regarding the seriousness of aggressive driving and to develop recommendations for consistent treatment of offenders.

We can shift the paradigm on aggressive driving penalties just as we shifted the paradigm on drunken driving penalties. No longer can these offenders expect a slap on the wrist --there will be serious judicial consequences for their actions. We want --the public demands --the same course of action for aggressive driving offenders.

America is making progress in the battle for safer roads, but safety is everyone's responsibility and we must all continue our vigilance. Through education, enforcement and uniform judicial policies we can raise the bar on safety. (...)

Leon James, Ph.D.
Diane Nahl, Ph.D.
Arnold  Nerenberg, Ph.D.

RoadRageous Video Course by AIPS

"I have had the opportunity to work with Dr. James through our aggressive driving program here in San Antonio. There is no doubt he is the foremost expert on the subject. Through his guidance we have established what I feel is a very comprehensive aggressive driver program here. Voluntary compliance to traffic laws and conditions must be the goal of any aggressive driver campaign and regular and constant awareness and education must play a large part in this effort. Dr. James efforts go a long way in accomplishing this goal.
Tom Polonis, Captain San Antonio Police Department

WHAT HAPPENS DURING A TRAFFIC STOP

Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 19:27:49 -1000
From: sm sm@juno.com
To: DrDriving@DrDriving.org

Subject: Traffic infraction

Dr. Driving,

About five years ago I had a very large furniture box in the back of my minivan which I was taking to my home about 1 mile through residential streets. My son, approximately 10 years old was inside the box holding onto the inside handle of the back liftgate because it could not quite close due to the box. I was traveling at quite a low rate of speed (10-15mph) to keep from making the liftgate bounce and further endangering him. (The speed limit on those streets is 20 mh)

The local police chief put his flashing lights on and stopped me. In answer to his question I told him I had no idea that I had broken any law. He returned to his car, brought his vehicle citation book and required me to read out loud the rule applying to the situation. (It said that hanging on to the outside of the vehicle was against the law). My son was not outside the vehicle at any time. The officer did not write a ticket but his attitude was very condescending and irritating. Furthermore, when my son piped up with his (inappropriate) comment that he hadn't been outside the vehicle, the officer verbally came down on him and said that if he was his son what he would do with him. I had corrected my son for addressing the officer as he did. I was horrified that the officer was being the kind of model he was in front of my son in his first interaction with a police officer. It was exactly what I would NOT have wanted to happen. The officer was abrasive, accusative, commanding, rude and authoritarian. So much for the friendly officer looking out for the good of the citizen.

In my view there was nothing wrong with him stopping me and finding out what my thinking was. From there he could have politely told me the vehicle code I had transgressed, even warned me, and advised me what I should do instead. I feel that when local police or state police treat citizens with polite respect they will further the cause of observing the law and respecting authority. As it was the police officer showed no reason for me to encourage my child to respect his position and made it more difficult for me to maintain my parental teaching.

I hope this can help some other officer to think of what he is representing to the children in the vehicle when the adult they care about is in the wrong. It really can make a difference in how the children, and the adults, view those in law enforcement as for us or against us.

S. M.

Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 08:47:40 -1000
From: Leon James leon@hawaii.edu

Subject: Re: Traffic infraction

Hi SM,

thanks for your contribution, I appreciate it.  It will help officers to read letters, including yours, that bring some awareness to their mind of how deeply their behavior and attitude affects the citizens they stop on the road, especially law abiding people who are shocked and frightened to be treated this way. And disappointed. I think better training and education for law enforcement is a necessity. Is there a Ride Along program in your local police department? Citizens can be influential in having this service started and and then you and your son can ride along to observe and influence them.

Take care.
Leon James
DrDriving

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 17:27:27 -1000
From: BR <br@net.com>
To: DrDriving@DrDriving.org

Subject: Traffic Stops

Dr. Driving,

This is in response to your request for information on traffic stops. I am an 18 year old male driver in PA, and have been stopped twice but not ticketed.

1. I was driving at approximately 50 MPH in a 45 zone approaching a traffic light at the entrance to a development, which was on my left. A police officer had pulled up to the intersection from the development, triggering the sensor and making the light yellow in my direction (I didn't see him, he was blocked by trees). When the light turned yellow, I braked briefly and then decided that I did not have enough room to stop without turning my passenger into chunky salsa. The light turned red just as I hit the stop line of the intersection. That's when I saw the patrol car.

I was pretty sure he'd pull me over, so I just coasted until he put on his lights, and then pulled over. He approached on the passenger side and did the standard 'license and registration,' bit and asked if I knew why I was stopped. I don't play stupid, so I said something making reference to the traffic light. After checking my registration & license, he let me go saying "Had you been doing 35, you would have been able to stop." Notice it was a 45 zone. I made it a point to check. Nothing to dwell on, though.

2. This past July 4th weekend I was driving back from upstate NY in my new Mustang. I had gotten off at the wrong exit on the highway, but was on a road that I knew would eventually get me home, so I continued. This section of US 202 went through some small towns, and I tried to keep my speed down (I even thought to myself: "Wonderful...Driving on small roads like this will increase my chances of getting pulled over! :) ). After I passed through one small town, I noticed car with Ford headlights pull up behind me quickly. I immediately thought to myself that it looked like a standard police Crown Victoria. Sure enough, he put on his lights just then.

I downshifted and pulled over promptly. I thought for sure he'd nail me, since I was in a new sports car. He approached on the driver's side and asked for my license and registration, and told me that he pulled me over for doing 42 in a 30. I nonchalantly said "Well, if that's what you clocked me at." He told me he'd be back shortly after checking my registration. He briefly looked at all items in plain view in the interior and proceded back to his car to check his registration. After he walked away, I had a funny feeling I'd get out of this one. Sure enough, after waiting 5 or so minutes, he let me go saying, "Try to pay attention to the signs." I thanked him, and drove away.

I'm very interested in knowing how commonly people handle traffic stops with such ease. I realize that officers have no idea what they're up against during a traffic stop, treating each one as a potentially life threatening situation. It always helps to be as nice as possible and know as much about the law and what you can & can't do in such a situation. Hope this helps.

Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 08:54:57 -1000
From: Leon James leon@hawaii.edu
To: BR<ryll@net.com>

Subject: Re: Traffic Stops

Thanks for your descriptions of traffic stop experiences. You gave good details that can be helpful to those who don't know how to behave and are all emotionally peeved or oversensitive. Also, it's a good perspective for officers in training to have.

Take care.
Leon James
DrDriving Says...The way you drive is contagious!

International Association of Chiefs of Police

IACP Resolution on
Condemning Racial and Ethnic Profiling in Traffic Stops

WHEREAS, according to the National Highway Safety Traffic Administration, the majority of traffic crashes are caused by moving traffic violations and kill 41,967 people a year, injure another 3.4 million persons, and cause a societal loss of $150 billion dollars a year; and

WHEREAS, intensive traffic enforcement efforts have been proven to reduce traffic crashes and increase the apprehension of criminal offenders; and

WHEREAS, law enforcement agencies have seized more illegal drugs resulting from traffic enforcement than they have from undercover enforcement strategies; and

WHEREAS, traffic stops utilizing plainview and consent searches annually lead to the interdiction of millions of dollars in illegal substances and stolen property; and

WHEREAS, careful analysis of the actions and behaviors of criminal offenders who use motor vehicles in the commission of crimes reveals commonalties which, after the traffic stop, can be used to develop probable cause; and

WHEREAS, such strategies, when based upon articulable suspicion that an infraction of the law has been committed, have been upheld as constitutionally appropriate by the U.S. Supreme Court; and

WHEREAS, traffic stops should not be made on the basis of the motorist’s race, ethnicity, or economic status, but rather on articulable suspicion or actual violation of a law; and

WHEREAS, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and professional law enforcement organizations' training courses teach that biased or unprofessional enforcement practices are prohibited and will not be condoned; now therefore be it

RESOLVED, that the International Association of Chiefs of Police urges all law enforcement agencies to utilize the “IACP Guiding Principles of Proactive Traffic Enforcement” when developing strategies for crash prevention and crime control; and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, all law enforcement agencies are urged to examine their interdiction strategies and their mission and value statements, training programs, field supervision, evaluation of citizen complaints and traffic stop data and other efforts to ensure that racial or ethic-based traffic stops are not being employed within their agencies and that all citizens are treated with the utmost courtesy and respect when they encounter our officers; and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the United States Department of Justice are urged to form a closer partnership for the purpose of providing financial support to state, county, municipal law enforcement agencies for training programs or in-car audio and video systems, and to assist in the voluntary collection of appropriate data relative to this resolution.

IACP Highway Safety Committee

Statement of Guiding Principles of Proactive Traffic Enforcement (Attachment to Preceding)

Law enforcement officers committed to the lifesaving benefits of proactive traffic enforcement are aware of its ancillary benefits in terms of crime prevention, reduction, and criminal apprehension. Proactive traffic enforcement should be carried out in a manner that strikes a balance between the right of citizens to enjoy a quality of life free from crime and traffic crashes and the right of citizens to be free from unreasonably intrusive police conduct; therefore, the International Association of Chiefs of Police proposes the following Guiding Principles:

Sir Robert Peel, in 1829, said that the first duty of the police is the prevention of crime; that the police can only be effective if they earn the trust of the public; and that the law must be enforced equally and impartially for all citizens. These principles are as sound today as they were in Peel’s day.

Community policing as practiced today involves a partnership between the police and the public that addresses crime, neighborhood deterioration, traffic problems and other quality of life issues.

Lessons can be learned from the most successful officers who are able to go beyond the traffic stop and apprehend criminal suspects.

Police officers should be assigned to areas where there is a high likelihood that crashes will be reduced and/or criminal suspects will be apprehended.

Achieving a higher rate of compliance in the use of safety belts and child safety restraints through proactive enforcement will save thousands of lives and prevent hundreds of thousands of disabling injuries from traffic crashes each year. Citizens of particular age, socioeconomic, and ethnic groups appear to have lower compliance levels in the use of these safety devices than other groups and therefore may be disproportionately represented in enforcement action for violations of safety belt and child restraint laws, but to the extent that enforcement of these laws brings a greater number of these citizens into compliance, these citizens will also disproportionately share in the lifesaving benefits of such enforcement.

Enforcement efforts can be enhanced by effective public information efforts.

Officers involved in traffic enforcement should be properly trained.

Training programs in traffic enforcement must emphasize the need to respect the rights of all citizens to be free of unreasonable government intrusion or police action.

Traffic enforcement programs must be accompanied by effective supervisory oversight to ensure that officers do not go beyond the parameters of reasonableness in conducting such activities.

Traffic stops should be made only with articulable suspicion that the person stopped has committed a traffic violation.

Appropriate enforcement action should always be completed at traffic stops, generally in the form of a warning, citation, or arrest.

No motorist, once cited or warned, should be detained beyond the point where there exists no reasonable suspicion of further criminal activity.

Officers making traffic stops shall not make them based on race, ethnicity or socioeconomic status.

Motor vehicle driver license information regarding the race of drivers stopped for traffic violations should be recorded whenever available and this data utilized by police departments to determine the extent to which racial minorities are stopped for traffic violations in proportion to their absolute numbers in the area’s population, and the number of minority stops which result in criminal apprehension versus the overall numbers of stops that result in such violations.

In jurisdictions where racial data is not contained on driver licenses and the racial characteristics of motorists are not visibly apparent, police officers should not be required to risk offending citizens by asking them their race at the time of a motor vehicle stop.

Incorporation of Racial Background as a Data Element on Driver’s Licenses Submitted by the Highway Safety Committee

WHEREAS, national concerns have been raised regarding the extent to which racial profiling may or may not exist as a triggering element in traffic stops and drug interdiction strategies; and

WHEREAS, some law enforcement agencies are required to record the race and ethnicity information of the subjects of police traffic stops; and

WHEREAS, race or ethnicity is no longer a data element on most states’ driver’s licenses; and

WHEREAS, without this element the only accurate way to determine the race or ethnicity of most drivers is for the officer to make a direct inquiry of the motorist; and

WHEREAS, such an inquiry often leads to embarrassment, resentment, misunderstanding and even confrontation; now therefore be it

RESOLVED, that the International Association of Chiefs of Police urges states to incorporate race and ethnicity as a data element and print it on the driver’s license to facilitate the capture and accurate recording of this information; and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, that the federal government is encouraged to provide funding to assist states wishing to modify their driver’s license and databases for this purposes; and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, that copies of this resolution be forwarded to the United States Attorney General, Secretary of Transportation, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, The National Governors' Association, The National Association of Governors' Highway Safety Representatives, and the National Sheriffs' Association, and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators.

original here

original here

City will launch offensive on aggressive drivers

By Monica Scandlen The Indianapolis Star May 30, 2000

If you've driven in Indianapolis, you have a stupid-driver story to tell. Maybe you had to hit the brakes while another driver swerved across three lanes of traffic in front of you. Or held your breath while a sport-utility vehicle crawled up your bumper as you drove 75 mph down the highway. Or just tried to stay out of the way while other drivers cursed, gestured and traded paint. More than once, you've probably wondered: "Where are the police when you need them?"

An answer to that question comes today from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which will announce a $200,000 federal grant to combat aggressive driving in Indianapolis. The money will be used to hire police officers to work overtime patrols, targeting aggressive drivers on interstates and heavily traveled city streets within the circle formed by I-465.

(...)

It's hard to say exactly how many aggressive drivers there are in Indianapolis. But local and national surveys show it is a growing concern. Last year, the traffic partnership surveyed 276 law enforcement officers in Marion County. Eighty-six percent said drivers are more aggressive than they were five years ago. Sixty-three percent of those officers said they see aggressive driving every day. Also last year, a national survey by the national highway safety agency found that one in three people think drivers in their area were more hostile than the year before. It isn't so hard to figure out why. Lt. Don Bickel, a 30-year veteran of the Indianapolis Police Department, who will head up the enforcement against aggressive drivers, has some ideas. People are in more of a hurry.

They drive longer distances to work. They have more distractions, such as cell phones and pagers. Most of all, Bickel said, they are less courteous and more likely to yell or make rude gestures. "But you can't just say, 'It's a sign of the times, so it's OK,' " he said. Although it might be hard for typical motorists to tell the difference, police officers distinguish aggressive driving from road rage. Road rage usually involves violence, like one car running another off the road or one driver pointing a gun at another. An aggressive driver is someone who commits several violations at once, like speeding, weaving in and out of traffic and changing several lanes at once. "What we'll be looking at is the overall picture, the person's driving behavior," Bickel said.

He plans to do that in several ways, including having officers on overpasses to spot aggressive motorists and radio to other officers, who will pull over the drivers. Officers also will patrol roads in unmarked cars and target construction zones, where aggressive driving seems more common. Ann Stickford, the local traffic partnership's project director, would like to see a 5 percent decrease in crashes at the end of the 18-month grant. Marion County has averaged about 35,000 vehicle wrecks a year for the past five years. The most common causes for those crashes were speeding, following too closely, failure to yield the right of way, disregarding signs or signals and impaired driving. "The aggressive driver is more dangerous than the driver who rolls through a stop sign," Stickford said. "The aggressive driver shows multiple behaviors. "In this day and age, we have so much going on that, when we get in our cars, we all become a little bit aggressive."

original here

Monday April 3, 2000

San Antonio Police Department Targets Aggressive Driving

SAN ANTONIO, April 3 /PRNewswire/ -- The San Antonio Police Department today announced a public-awareness campaign and enforcement initiative intended to combat aggressive driving on highways within the city. This program has been developed through the efforts of the San Antonio Police Department, USAA, Dr. Leon James and Dr. Diane Nahl, traffic psychologists with the University of Hawaii and the American Institute for Public Safety.

The campaign will be called Drive Smart_ -- Be a Cool Operator and will include education, enforcement and judicial efforts. In conjunction with this initiative, the San Antonio Police Department will survey San Antonians on attitudes toward aggressive driving.

``With more congestion on our highways, and a seeming lack of regard for courtesy on our roads, we're seeing more and more incidents of aggressive driving,'' said Al A. Philippus, chief of the San Antonio Police Department. ``We've trained traffic officers to target aggressive driving, which is not only dangerous, but illegal. Of course, we'd like drivers to show courtesy and respect while in an automobile, but if my officers observe aggressive driving, we're going to write tickets and follow-up with materials so drivers know how they are breaking the law.''

Philippus said that there are sufficient laws currently available to police to combat aggressive driving, but the initiative gives traffic officers additional training to identify and ticket such behavior. Each of the 120 officers assigned to the department's Traffic Section recently attended an intensive eight-hour instruction providing specialized training at the department's academy. For the first time, officers will be issuing citations in conjunction with Traffic Enforcement and Education cards. Driver statistics indicate the average driver receives one traffic citation every three years, but during that time will commit 2,000 traffic violations.

USAA assisted the San Antonio Police Department in developing a public awareness campaign, a survey of area attitudes toward aggressive driving and materials to be used by traffic officers.

``We're interested and involved in this effort for two reasons,'' said Henry (Butch) Viccellio, president of USAA P&C Insurance Group. ``We believe this is an important community and public safety issue and we also have some 17,000 employees who use the highway system on a daily basis. Efforts like this that will contribute to better safety on the roads will benefit everyone.''

With the support of USAA, the San Antonio Police Department has developed Traffic Enforcement and Education cards, which starting April 4 will be given to drivers who are stopped for an aggressive driving offense by San Antonio Police Department traffic officers. On one side, the TEE Card offers a self- assessment for drivers to measure their tendency for aggressive driving. On the other side, information explains what drivers should do in the event they encounter another motorist exhibiting aggressive driving behavior.

In addition, one traffic officer will be assigned to an unmarked police cruiser on principal highways under the department's purview. This officer will be targeting aggressive drivers under the Drive Smart_ -- Be a Cool Operator program.

SAPD also will be coordinating a public-awareness campaign to drive home the message about aggressive driving. A series of public service announcements and community-affairs initiatives have been prepared.

The U.S. Department of Transportation defines aggressive driving as operating a vehicle in a way that endangers or is likely to endanger people or property. Aggressive driving frequently is described as driving under the influence of impaired emotions.

Drivers manifest aggressive behavior in several ways. Chief among the behaviors that traffic officers will target are:

• Yelling, insulting, gesturing.
• Red light running.
• Tailgating.
• Speeding.
• Frequent lane changing or weaving.
• Blocking cars trying to pass.
• Braking suddenly to punish tailgaters.
• Failing to yield the right of way.
• Passing on the median to avoid traffic.
• Changing lanes without signaling.

Sample fines for the above traffic infractions within San Antonio begin at $115 and typically can be paired with other violations to increase the toll on aggressive drivers. Traffic violators who have tickets adjudicated at Municipal Court and are found guilty are subject to any amount authorized as the maximum fine set by state law.

The San Antonio Municipal Court is the third leg, the judicial aspect of the campaign against aggressive driving. Drivers identified as exhibiting aggressive behaviors and cited for a traffic offense will be tracked through the Municipal Court process. Violators may be ordered to attend special aggressive driving training courses as a condition of probation or more severe monetary sanctions may be enforced on repeat aggressive drivers.

``What we're saying to drivers in this city is Drive Smart_ -- Be a Cool Operator. Don't take your aggressions out on San Antonio's highways and streets,'' said Philippus. ``If you do, you'll pay the price.''

About USAA -- USAA has been serving present and former members of the U.S. military and their families for more than 77 years as one of America's leading financial services companies. The association, well known for exceptional service, offers its 3.5 million members and associate members a full range of insurance, banking and investment products and services designed to help them meet their financial security needs. Headquartered in San Antonio, Texas, with offices throughout the United States and Europe, USAA owns or manages assets of more than $56.8 billion.

Drive Smart_ is a registered trademark of USAA.

Contact: Sgt. Gabriel Trevino of the San Antonio Police Department, 210-207-7579; or Tom Honeycutt of USAA, 210-498-0910.

SOURCE: USAA and San Antonio Police Department

original story here    ||   see a Yahoo! report on the results

Question 1:    How  widespread is aggressive driving?  Is it an important social problem?

Answer: 

We're looking at an enormous problem when we deal with aggressive driving.  

There are 177 million licensed drivers in the U.S., and the majority have been raised in a cultural atmosphere that

1. condones aggressive driving
2. encourages competition behind the wheel
3. allows the expression of hostility towards other motorists
4. promotes a sense of entitlement about having the right to drive the way they want
5. condones cynicism and disrespect of the law
6. promotes the idea of territorial freedom around the vehicle as one's private castle
7. leads motorists to be time-bound and feeling anxious about getting there
8. provides people with multi-tasking activities in cars without training (eating, phone and communications equipment)
9. creates a diversity of drivers with different competencies and purposes for being on the highway
10. the 35 million American boys who are growing up today have seen an increase of 27% in violence from 1981 to 1998
11. the anger culture today often equates "masculine" with reckless and high risk behavior
12. parenting today does not include a focus on moral skills and emotional intelligence
13. a steady dose of violence in cartoons, movies, and video games desensitize the population, raising public tolerance for aggressiveness against strangers and lowering the threshold of expressing it overtly in public places

These cultural factors have created and are maintaining the driving style of the population.  So the problem is vast and deep and serious:

• 40,000 deaths per year
• 6 million crash injuries per year
• 100 billion aggressive driving exchanges per day
• 250 billion dollars direct cost per year
• untold numbers of stress related health problems and human suffering

Question 2:    What traffic education role is desirable for law enforcement officers?

Answer: 

A major initiative by law enforcement officials and personnel is needed to re-educate the public.  Traffic related work puts officers in a position of importance regarding the traffic education of motorists.  Consider these facts::

• Americans spend 500 million hours per week in their cars
• they travel 3 billion miles annually
• the current death rate is 1.6 per 100 million miles
• the average driver receives 1 ticket every three years
• a motorist will commit 2,000 traffic violations for each one being caught
• by the year 2020 traffic fatalities will be the world's third leading cause of deaths (after heart disease and depression)
• since the year 1900, 3 million Americans died in car crashes (vs. 635,000 American casualties in all wars combined)

Law enforcement officers have for decades been playing a major role in traffic safety education for elementary public schools.  This educational role of police officers is going to increase because the need for it is increasing.  Consider the traffic stop.  It is a window of opportunity for an educational mini-lesson because the motorist and passengers have got your full attention.  In some cases they will know what they did wrong, and in other cases they will not know. The officer needs to be prepared in order to be authoritative and effective.

Question 3:    What do law enforcement officers need to know in order to play an effective traffic education role?

Answer:

There are two parts to this answer.

Part 1:  Knowing how to identify the aggressive driver's specific behavior.

For instance New Jersey police uses these traffic violations

• Speeding
• Following Too Close
• Unsafe Lane Change
• Driving While Intoxicated
• Reckless, Careless or Inattentive Driving
• Disregard Of Traffic Signs and Signals
• Improper Passing
• Driving While Suspended

The New Jersey Chiefs of Police and Traffic Officers Association have identified aggressive and impaired drivers as the primary targets of patrol activities.  Traffic enforcement officers are working to identify aggressive driving through observed motor vehicle violations such as

• driving while intoxicated (DWI),
• speeding,
• following too closely,
• unsafe lane changes,
• tailgating
• careless and inattentive driving
• disregarding traffic signals and signs
• failure to keep right
• flashing lights to move the slow driver out of the way
• cutting drivers off
• hand gestures
• weaving through traffic
• needlessly honking the horn
• impatience

Part 2: Being adequately prepared to deliver an effective mini-lesson

Knowing how to suggest driving tips to aid in dealing with aggressive drivers without upsetting them or causing the law-abiding motorist harm.  For instance, New Jersey officers have been taught to give out these tips

• Make every attempt to get out of the aggressive driver's path
• Do not challenge them
• Avoid eye contact
• Do not make or return gestures
• Do not block the passing lane and avoid switching lanes without signaling
• Do not tailgate
• Allow plenty of time for your trip
• Stay away from drivers behaving erratically

More effective methods involve the use of a Traffic Enforcement Education Curriculum.  DrDriving's TEE CARDS are samples of such a curriculum.  Officers themselves need to  know and understand the curriculum before they can believably distribute the cards and legitimately play the combined role of enforcer and educator.  This knowledge will make the officers better traffic educators as well as better drivers, on and off the job.

DrDriving recommends the RoadRageous Video Course as an effective method of teaching law enforcement officers a knowledge and understanding of aggressive driving psychology.  This course prepares the officer to understand the TEE CARDS they distribute.  A description of the course may be viewed at this Web address:  DrDriving.org/video

Question 4:    What are "Traffic Emotions"?

Answer:

Driving involves the whole person:  emotions, thoughts, sensory input, motor output.  It's common knowledge that your driver personality in traffic can be very different from how you act and feel at other times.  This is because our emotions in traffic are specific to that environment or situation.  Traffic emotions are generally undisciplined habits we acquire in childhood while riding in cars.   Most drivers are unaware of their traffic emotions until they make an effort to monitor themselves.

Question 5:    What is "Emotions Education"?

Answer:

People believe that emotions and feelings just happen due to circumstances.    However psychologists have proven that emotions and feelings are "affective habits" we acquire as part of our up-bringing.  It's common knowledge that you can change the way you feel about something if you are motivated to do so.  Educating your emotions is necessary for survival and happiness.  One of our primary responsibilities as drivers is emotions education.  We are required to monitor our emotions behind the wheel so that we may modify them.  Emotions education is being used in public schools (e.g., "Self Science Program" and "Conflict Resolution" Curriculum) and in the workplace ("Emotional Intelligence" workshops and "Anger Management" clinics).

Question 6:    Why do we need traffic emotions education?

Answer:

Our society is gearing up to face and handle the epidemic of aggressive driving that causes 42,000 fatalities, 6 million serious injuries, and 250 billion dollars in annual cost, not counting untold human suffering.  Law enforcement initiatives are becoming more aggressive, and invasive, and States are passing new and tough aggressive driving legislation that land people in jail.  Motorists consider traffic aggressiveness as their number one worst daily hassle.  People's health is affected, and the nation's glue of civility  is torn apart by the war zone on our highways.  Neither legislation, nor law enforcement, nor driver education can solve the problem totally, though they all help and are necessary, and should be increased.  But what will solve the problem altogether is general, widespread traffic emotions education.

Take a look at these results from a DrDriving survey:

Question 6:    How do TEE CARDS help and who needs them?

Answer:

We need to place in people's hands a method of learning and changing.  We need to empower people, not just with cars, but with "inner power tools" that will make them effective in their own traffic emotions education.  Each TEE CARD is an inner power tool.  When you study one TEE CARD, you're building one block in your Driving Psychology.  The more TEE CARDS you study, the more building blocks you have for your knowledge of driving psychology.  This is the knowledge that you need for traffic emotions education.

My research as DrDriving convinces me that every single driver needs traffic emotions education, and TEE CARDS will help everyone of all ages and all experiences.  Driving is a lifelong activity and it is so complex and so changing over time that you constantly have to keep up-grading yourself.  Children need TEE CARDS because they use the roads and parking lots and ride in cars.  Our driver education starts then, not later.    People who drive all day long--like police, truckers, taxi cabs, etc., also need TEE CARDS.  Race car drivers too, because they get to drive home on our roads!

Question 7:    Are there additional benefits to TEE CARDS?

Answer:

Yes. Society, the nation, the community, the neighborhood, the family, the school, the workplace--all benefit when drivers change their hostile emotions and cultivate positive, supportive emotions.  This change generalizes to other situations because emotions intervene everywhere all day long.

Question 8:    What formats and sizes do TEE CARDS come in?

Answer:

The design of TEE CARDS is a combination of scientific knowledge, instructional design, and creative or artistic presentation.  They come in all shapes and materials since distributors or producers create their own innovative features.  However, one aspect remains unchanged in all TEE CARDS:  their content.  This is provided exclusively by DrDriving.  They are the creation of Dr. Leon James and Dr. Diane Nahl, the two founders of Driving Psychology.

Question 9:    How do I order TEE CARDS?

Answer:

Please e-mail DrDriving with your request and specific interest.

original Seattle Times article here

Troopers use unmarked cars to combat aggressive driving

by Louis T. Corsaletti
Seattle Times Eastside bureau

As he cruises at 60 mph south on Interstate 405 through Bellevue, state Trooper Willie Hernandez watches other motorists whiz by, well over the speed limit.

They're oblivious to his unmarked Washington State Patrol car, a four-door sedan with regular license plates. It's difficult to see the uniformed trooper because of the car's tinted windows.

Hernandez, along with Trooper Jeff Maijala, have been on the year-old Aggressive Driver Apprehension Team (ADAT), patrolling state highways and freeways in 10-hour shifts since June. Soon they will be joined by 10 more troopers driving unmarked sport-utility vehicles, cars and even taxis. Troopers will be alternated every three months.

(...)

Using unmarked cars gets around what officers call the "halo effect," in which the sight of a marked patrol car makes misbehaving drivers shape up, and it's hoped it will encourage drivers to be courteous all the time because they'll never be sure whether the sedan they've just cut off is driven by a trooper.

Suddenly, Hernandez notices a pickup coming up very fast in the car-pool lane near Factoria. As the pickup passes by, Hernandez's radar dial shows it traveling 75 mph.

Soon the driver is tailgating another motorist in the commuter lane. It suddenly swerves from the car-pool lane without signaling, crosses through the next lane and pulls into the right lane, still moving beyond the speed limit.

A prime example of aggressive driving, Hernandez says. (...)

The fine for following too closely, sudden lane changes or failure to signal is $71. Drivers can be fined $337 for speeding 40 to 60 mph over the posted limit.

The big fines come with convictions for negligent driving - up to $1,000 - or up to $5,000 for reckless driving.

Anyone cited by the road-rage patrol must appear in Federal Way District Court. (...)

Anyone can drive aggressively, Hernandez notes, and most drivers he has stopped have been evenly divided between men and women. But nearly four of five drivers ticketed are men, and about half are ages 18 to 28, according to the state Department of Licensing.

"They usually don't complain when I stop them, especially when they are told they are being photographed on a video camera," Hernandez says.

During the first seven months of the patrol, 2,148 citations were issued. From January through June this year, more than 2,700 citations have been written, said Trooper Julie Myer, who keeps tabs on ADAT.

The program is funded by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and the state must use the funds specifically for road-rage patrols.

Eventually, every State Patrol district in the state will be covered by road-rage teams, including the two taxis patrolling the I-5 corridor from Tacoma to the Everett-Marysville area.

We  need more parental involvement in a positive way.    Currently the parental influence on children is negative.  We expose our children to years of aggressive driving attitudes as they ride in our cars.  Then, as they get behind the wheel, they act like their parents, or worse.  We start our driver education as infants riding in cars.  We pick up attitudes and feelings and orientations--all non-verbally, by osmosis.  Later, we do it verbally as well.    We imitate and practice these attitudes on streets, in parking lots, in shopping centers.  So we need to teach children about civility, human rights, and compassion in public places where we share space.  Attitudes towards others' rights and respect for authority should be taught in elementary school (this is called Affective Driver Ed).   Then in intermediate school, children should be taught how to reason about traffic and pedestrian behavior and events (this is called Cognitive Driver Ed).  Finally in high school, teenagers would get hands on driving instruction (this is called sensorimotor Driver Ed).  Beyond that, each individual would be enrolled in a QDC of their choice, either neighborhood, church, or workplace.  This plan would take care of Lifelong Driver Ed and would transform our killing highways into a highway community in one generation.  I have written a video course that focuses on the this social responsibility of drivers--available here.

Here is a bird's eye view of DrDriving's Comprehensive Proposal:  click on the parts for more information on each.

Lifelong Driver Education
CLICK ON EACH ITEM FOR DETAILS

AFFECTIVE
INSTRUCTION

COGNITIVE
INSTRUCTION

SENSORI-MOTOR
INSTRUCTION

K & Elementary
CARR
Children Against Road Rage

• obedience
• respect
• morality

Intermediate
CARR
Children Against Road Rage

• emotional intelligence
• driving psychology

High School
YARR
Youth Against Road Rage

• vehicle control
• alertness
• awareness

GRADUATED LICENSING PROCESS

QDCs
Quality Driving Circles

• tolerance
• social responsibility
• compassion

• anger management
• self-witnessing
• traffic theory
• self-assessment

• supportive driving
• partnership driving
• threestep program

As a society, we must recognize that cultural transmission and tradition are responsible factors in aggressive driving, and contribute to it.  Therefore cultural techniques of re-education are needed to reverse the generational trend.  We can collect all sorts of advice and hints for how to stop the increase in aggressive driving (see my large collection here, culled from the Web).   If this trend is not reversed, we can expect aggressive driving to increase, despite the more extensive law enforcement and electronic 'surveillance' initiatives that are being instituted throughout the country.   The full solution or elimination of this problem lies in consciously and deliberately reversing the cultural tradition that allows us to express hostility behind the wheel (see here for a list of the top 100 complaints drivers have about one another).  It's obvious that feelings run very intense and to solve this problem is easier said than done.  In my role as DrDriving, I have been providing various types of self-management tools and socially dynamic methods of  motivating drivers to accept the idea of Lifelong Driver Education as a matter of social responsibility, as outlined in this document. The overall goal of driver education must be explicitly stated in positive terms, rather than merely negative.  The goal must be to evolve a cultural norm for driving that can be called Supportive Driving, in opposition to Aggressive Driving.  Oddly enough, research by psychologists has remained limited to a few problems--see my large bibliography of driving research here

We need to understand the difference between these two opposing driving styles and philosophies.  Car society is now beginning its second century.    For the first century society was able to license drivers through minimal training and examination, and this approach worked for a while, but things started braking down in the 1950s when more and more drivers began to drive the fast moving vehicles placed in their hands.  The death rate climbed to above 50,000 for many years.   It was brought down to its current 40,000 fatalities a year through better car design, better road engineering, more safety laws, better paramedical services.   Still, 40,000 fatalities year after year turns the highways into war zones (about 40,000 American fatalities were incurred in the entire six-year Vietnam war).  Add to this amazing carnage, 5 million crashes with enormous suffering and disruption to lives for millions, and an economic cost of 200 billion per year, and you begin to realize that we are having an enormously serious problem to fix.  The goal:  to turn the 177 million drivers in this nation (the number is climbing...) into Supportive Drivers.   Since this philosophy is contrary to tradition, habit, and convenience we are faced with people's massive opposition to their self-transformation.  Drivers have their own theory as to why drivers makes them mad.  These popular but non-adaptive attitudes and rationalizations must be abandoned in favor of emotionally more intelligent alternatives.

I believe that the enormous driving challenge that is facing our society today can become an opportunity for strengthening our community and evolving more humane and compassionate relations with each other.  Instead of mutual antagonism, we will feel and express mutual support.  Driving can increase our humanity by forcing us to make peace on our highways and streets and parking lots.   We must, or else we will see an increase of hostile behavior in public places, as people are now beginning to talk about

• parking lot rage
• pedestrian rage
• bicyclists rage
• passengers rage
• air rage (sky rage)
• etc.

and so on.  Let's not go that route!  And yet more and more people will be tempted to slide into these dangers forms of behaviors due to social imitation and emotional  contagion.

Socio-Cultural Methods of
Managing Driving Behavior in a Society
a related article by DrDriving

Driving Psychology is a new field of knowledge that brings together all that we need to know to manage the driving behavior of millions:   transportation, safety, psychology, education, communication, testing, civic activism, law enforcement and legislation.

Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 20:50:23 -1000
From: E@aol.com
To: DrDriving@DrDriving.org

Subject: Pulled Over

I was once pulled over for speeding. The Officer was very kind and gave me a warning. For road rage, such as tailgating, red light running, not signaling and such, I believe that Officers should be more "aggressive" I mean that they should make the person fell like a complete idiot. Example:

"I pulled you over for tailgating."
"Im sorry Officer, but Im in a hurry."
"Oh Im sorry. I didn't know that gave you the right to put your life and other lives in danger,"

=-)

MIAMI-DADE   Published Thursday, November 18, 1999, in the Miami Herald

Program soothes the savage driver

BY JACK WHEAT jwheat@herald.com

Miami-Dade is the nation's first county to try aggressive-driving classes for people who spend too much time in the company of police officers writing tickets, said Christopher Huffman, chief operating officer of the American Institute for Public Safety, the company that offers the course.

The program is`RoadRageous'' a pilot project of the private AIPS and the 11th Judicial Circuit.

In addition to assessing fines, Miami-Dade judges may now order repeat traffic offenders to attend an eight-hour class on how to curb antisocial behavior on the highways, said Chief Circuit Judge Joseph Farina.

``I believe that aggressive driving is responsible for more accidents and injuries than any other negative driving activity,'' Farina said. ``We decided to take a proactive approach to this.''

The American Institute for Public Safety hired a national expert on driver attitudes to design the course and another to evaluate it before Farina signed off on it three months ago.

``About 100 percent of the time, driving in traffic is a stressful situation,'' class instructor Mike Panzeca said. RoadRageous is for drivers who erratically dart in and out of traffic, run stop signs and red lights, pass stopped school buses and speed.

Panzeca said multiple offenses are a good indicator that people in the course need to be there. ``The average person gets tickets once every three years,'' he said. Many more drivers need it, Farina said. But multiple offenses are the only indicator judges and traffic hearing officers can rely on, because there's no such crime as ``aggressive driving'' in Florida -- yet.

The Florida Highway Patrol wants the Legislature to define aggressive driving, make it a crime and establish penalties. If that happens, courses such as Roadrageous could pop up statewide.

The course is a turbocharged version of defensive-driving classes offered nationally for people with reasonably clean records who get tickets. If people opt to take those four-hour classes to brush up on their driving skills, their driving records do not collect points that could raise their insurance rates.

The American Institute for Public Safety offers such courses in an improvisational comedy format. The eight-hour Roadrageous is a more intensive mix of comedy, videotaped segments and psychology. Besides their fines, the tagged road warriors pay $65 for the class and devote a full day of their weekend to it.

``There are two kinds of drivers: morons and idiots,'' Panzeca deadpanned -- morons in the slow cars ahead, idiots zooming past you.

The joke launched Panzeca's theme: Anger toward fellow drivers escalates into grudge matches; even when it doesn't lead to tickets or wrecks, it leaves the combatants angry long after they get to work or home.

``People do things in their cars in traffic they would never do otherwise,'' Panzeca said. The common courtesy they routinely exhibit in bank lines and elevators is replaced by angry yelling and gesturing. The key to stopping angry driving is stopping the angry thinking, he said.

Original1999 Miami Herald article here

Tuesday May 23 8:15 AM ET

The Causes of Road Rage Are Abundant

UTICA, N.Y. (Reuters/Zogby) - What irks you the most about the actions of other motorists? For respondents to the latest
Zogby America survey, it's motorists who follow too close.

The May survey of 1,236 adults nationwide showed that 23.7% hated tailgaters the most, followed by 21% who are irked by
other motorists who drive while using cell phones.

Other motorist irritations include: 13.1% are irked by people who drive too slowly, and 12.6% are
bothered by drivers who fail to signal.

Speed racers raised the blood pressure the most for 7.4% of the respondents, while failing to dim
their bright lights bothered another 4%. Motorists who hog two parking spaces troubled 3.7%,
motorists who fail to notice a turn signal bothered 2.9%, and overly cautious drivers pinged 1.7%.

What we asked:

``What particular action by other drivers would you say irks you the most? Following too close, driving too slow, parking in
two spaces, unnoticed turn signal, no signal, driving with bright lights glaring, over cautious, driving too fast, cell phone,

original here

In  a New Jersey bill, the aggressive driver is defined as

Anyone who operates a motor vehicle in an offensive, hostile or belligerent manner, thereby creating an unsafe environment for the remainder of the motoring public.

The aggressive driver is identified through the following violations of New Jersey's traffic regulations:

1. Speeding
2. Following Too Close
3. Unsafe Lane Change
4. Driving While Intoxicated
5. Reckless, Careless or Inattentive Driving
6. Disregard Of Traffic Signs and Signals
7. Improper Passing
8. Driving While Suspended

One Arizona bill defines aggressive driving as

Traveling at a stated number of miles per hour above the speed limit and driving in a generally threatening and reckless way.

The bill sets stiff penalties, including a 30-day license suspension for first-time offenders.  Drivers could be charged with aggressive driving if they are cited for a combination of any three of the following charges:

1. reckless driving
2. excessive speed
3. passing on the right or on the shoulder
4. tailgating
5. failing to signal lane changes or to change lane properly
6. failing to yield the right-of-way
7. running a red light or stop sign

A similar bill in Arizona classifies aggressive driving as a class 1 misdemeanor and requires drivers convicted of the offense to attend driver training and education. Defines aggressive driving as occurring when a driver

1. speeds
2. commits two or more listed offenses that include failing to obey a traffic control device
3. drives over the "gore" area entering or exiting a highway
4. drives recklessly
5. passes a vehicle on the right by traveling off the pavement
6. changes lanes erratically
7. follows too closely
8. fails to yield right of way
9. is an immediate hazard to another person or vehicle.

A Connecticut bill allows the commissioner of Motor Vehicles to require a driver with two or more moving violations in one year to attend a class about controlling aggressive driving. Creates a penalty for aggressive driving of not more than $250 and a 30-day driver’s license suspension.  Aggressive driving is defined as

1. driving in a manner that evidences a pattern of dangerous conduct contributing to the likelihood of a collision or necessitating evasive action by another operator of a motor vehicle to avoid a collision.
2. driving recklessly
3. failing to stop when directed by a police officer

A Hawaii bill creates the offense of aggressive driving and is punishable by a fine of not less than $200 nor more than $2,500 and jail time for not less than one month nor more than one year.  The court will assess 5 points against the driving record of people convicted of this offense.  The offense is defined as operating a vehicle:

1. In a contentious or antagonistic manner that endangers the safety of another or of property
2. With a willful and wanton disregard for the life, limb or property of another
3. While either the driver or a passenger is brandishing a firearm, or any object similar in appearance, in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another
4. In a threatening or intimidating manner with intent to cause another motorist to lose control or be forced off the highway.

In Illinois aggressive driving is made into a class B misdemeanor and a second offense is a class A misdemeanor. Road rage violations result in mandatory driver’s license revocation.  Particulars:

1. Creates the offense of road rage for any person who intentionally drives a vehicle, with malice, in such a manner as to endanger the safety or property of another.
2. Aggravated road rage occurs when the violation results in great bodily harm or disfigurement to another and is a class 4 felony.
3. Also creates the offense of aggressive driving when a person operates a vehicle carelessly or heedlessly in disregard for the rights of others, in a manner that endangers or is likely to endanger any property or person, or committing three or more traffic offenses.

In Maryland a bill requires the Motor Vehicle administrator to assess points for multiple violations committed by a driver. Creates the offense of aggressive driving when a person

1. drives a motor vehicle in a deliberately discourteous, intolerant, and impatient manner that evidences a pattern of dangerous conduct contributing to the likelihood of a collision or necessitating evasive action by another driver of a motor vehicle to avoid a collision.
2. is convicted of four or more violations occurring at the same time or three violations with one of the offenses being exceeding the speed limit by at least 30 mph.

Requires curriculum in driver improvement courses to address aggressive driving:

1. to raise awareness of the behavior
2. modify aggressive driving behavior
3. provide information on alternative methods for dealing with impatience, frustration, anger and intolerance on the roads.

The Nebraska bill amends the offense of reckless driving to include

1. driving in a threatening or intimidating manner
2. flashing headlights
3. honking the horn repeatedly
4. following too closely
5. pointing a firearm or weapon while driving

The New York law requires

1. pre-licensing education about aggressive driving as a prerequisite for obtaining a driver’s license
2. provides for driver's license suspension or revocation for violations
3. prohibits a reduction in insurance premiums for any course which fails to address aggressive driving.

Classifies aggressive driving as a class E felony and creates the offense of aggressive driving that includes:

1. operating a vehicle in a reckless manner that creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another
2. displaying a weapon or what appears to be a weapon in such a manner to place another person in reasonable fear of injury or death
3. operating a vehicle in such a manner as to place another in reasonable fear of physical injury or death
4. driving with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person in a manner contrary to law
5. changing lanes or speed in a manner that serves no legitimate purpose and creates a substantial risk of injury or death to another
6. recklessly creating a substantial risk of serious injury or death or driving with intent to place another in fear of injury or death
7. intentionally displaying a weapon with intent to harass or alarm another
8. intentionally causing a collision

Requires that pre-licensing and defensive driving courses devote a minimum of 15 minutes of instruction to road rage awareness. Topics to be covered include

1. the hazards of driving while under the influence of "road rage"
2. the sanctions for road rage related violations
3. biological and medical effects of the development and expression of road rage.

In Virginia, aggressive driving constitutes a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not less than $200 nor more than $2,500 and jail time for no less than one month nor more than one year, 48 hours of which will be a minimum mandatory sentence.  Requires driver’s education programs offered through the school system to include instruction concerning aggressive driving.   Creates an aggressive driving offense defined as:

1. operating a vehicle with a wanton disregard for the life, limb, or property of another
2. driving and brandishing a firearm or weapon in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another
3. operating a vehicle in a threatening or intimidating manner with the intent to cause others to lose control or be forced off the highway.
4. operating a vehicle with a reckless disregard for the rights of others or in a manner that endangers any property or person
5. committing any two or more violations in a single act or series of acts in close proximity to another vehicle
6. changing lanes unsafely
7. following too closely
8. failing to yield
9. speeding
10. driving too fast for conditions
11. failing to signal and racing

The Washington bill defines the   first violation as a misdemeanor and carries a fine of not less than $350 nor more than $5,000 and jail time of a minimum of 24 hours.  Creates the offense of aggressive driving and defines it as

1. committing any two or more acts of aggressive driving within five consecutive miles in a manner that intimidates or threatens another person
2. failing to obey traffic control devices
3. passing improperly
4. following too closely
5. changing lanes improperly
6. failing to yield right of way
7. signaling improperly
8. overtaking and passing a school bus
9. speeding
10. stopping on the roadway
11. driving with wheels off the roadway
12. throwing glass or other sharp objects on to the road.

For additional information on legislative bills, consult DrDriving's Law Enforcement site.

Legislation directed at controlling road rage has actually been introduced in 17 states and many other bills are under development (5). Definitional problems and concerns about conflicts with current traffic laws are barriers to passing aggressive driving legislation. Many of these statutes are perceived as unenforceable due to ambiguous wording that allows for too much interpretation by law enforcement officers (35)(42)(12)(43)(37)(48). The Mid-America Research Institute conducted a series of focus groups for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Group participants included judges, prosecutors, public defenders, defense attorneys and police; none of the groups believed that specific legislation was needed to address road rage (30).

From a AAA Study in 1998

State Laws

Language
weak=calls for officer's subjective judgment
strong=objectively observable or measurable

Rating

Washington

committing any two or more acts of aggressive driving within five consecutive miles

strong

Washington

failing to obey traffic control devices

strong

Washington

passing improperly

weak

Washington

stopping on the roadway

strong

Virginia

operating a vehicle in a threatening or intimidating manner with the intent to cause others to lose control or be forced off the highway

weak

Virginia

operating a vehicle with a reckless disregard for the rights of others or in a manner that endangers any property or person

weak

Virginia

driving too fast for conditions

weak

New York

operating a vehicle in such a manner as to place another in reasonable fear of physical injury or death

weak

New York

driving with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person in a manner contrary to law

weak

New York

changing lanes or speed in a manner that serves no legitimate purpose and creates a substantial risk of injury or death to another

weak

New York

intentionally causing a collision

weak

Nebraska

driving in a threatening or intimidating manner

following too closely

weak

Nebraska

honking the horn repeatedly

strong

Nebraska

pointing a firearm or weapon while driving

strong

Maryland

drives a motor vehicle in a deliberately discourteous, intolerant, and impatient manner that evidences a pattern of dangerous conduct contributing to the likelihood of a collision or necessitating evasive action by another driver of a motor vehicle to avoid a collision

weak

Maryland

is convicted of four or more violations occurring at the same time or three violations with one of the offenses being exceeding the speed limit by at least 30 mph.

strong

Illinois

creates the offense of road rage for any person who intentionally drives a vehicle, with malice, in such a manner as to endanger the safety or property of another

weak

Illinois

when the violation results in great bodily harm or disfigurement to another and is a class 4 felony

strong

Illinois

operates a vehicle carelessly or heedlessly in disregard for the rights of others, in a manner that endangers or is likely to endanger any property or person, or committing three or more traffic offenses

weak

Hawaii

operating a vehicle in a contentious or antagonistic manner that endangers the safety of another or of property

weak

Hawaii

operating a vehicle while either the driver or a passenger is brandishing a firearm, or any object similar in appearance, in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another

strong

Hawaii

operates a vehicle with a willful and wanton disregard for the life, limb or property of another

weak

Connecticut

driving in a manner that evidences a pattern of dangerous conduct contributing to the likelihood of a collision or necessitating evasive action by another operator of a motor vehicle to avoid a collision.

weak

Connecticut

driving recklessly

weak

Connecticut

failing to stop when directed by a police officer

strong

Arizona

Drivers could be charged with aggressive driving if they are cited for a combination of any three of the following charges:

• using excessive speed
• driving recklessly
• changing lanes erratically
• being an immediate hazard to another person or vehicle.

weak

Arizona

Drivers could be charged with aggressive driving if they are cited for a combination of any three of the following charges:

• committing two or more listed offenses that include failing to obey a traffic control device
• passing on the right or on the shoulder
• tailgating or following too closely
• failing to signal lane changes or to change lane properly
• failing to yield the right-of-way
• running a red light or stop sign
• driving over the "gore" area entering or exiting a highway
• passing a vehicle on the right by traveling off the pavement

strong

New Jersey

An aggressive driver is anyone who operates a motor vehicle in an offensive, hostile or belligerent manner, thereby creating an unsafe environment for the remainder of the motoring public.

weak

New Jersey

The aggressive driver is identified through the following violations of   traffic regulations:

• Speeding (breaking the speed limit)
• Following Too Close (less than safe distance)
• Driving While Intoxicated
• Disregard Of Traffic Signs and Signals
• Driving While Suspended

strong

New Jersey

The aggressive driver is identified through the following violations of   traffic regulations:

• Unsafe Lane Change
• Reckless, Careless or Inattentive Driving
• Improper Passing

weak

THE ARIZONA AGGRESSIVE DRIVING LAW

28-695. Aggressive driving; violation; classification; definition

A. A person commits aggressive driving if both of the following occur:

1. During a course of conduct the person commits a violation of either section 28-701, subsection A or section 28-701.02 and at least two of the following violations:

(a) Failure to obey traffic control devices as provided in section 28-644.

(b) Overtaking and passing another vehicle on the right by driving off the pavement or main traveled portion of the roadway as provided in section 28-724.

(c) Unsafe lane change as provided in section 28-729.

(d) Following a vehicle too closely as provided in section 28-730.

(e) Failure to yield the right-of-way as provided in article 9 of this chapter.

2. The person's driving is an immediate hazard to another person or vehicle.

B. A person convicted of aggressive driving is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor.

C. In addition to any other penalty prescribed by law:

1. A person convicted of a violation of this section shall attend and successfully complete approved traffic survival school training and educational sessions that are designed to improve the safety and habits of drivers and that are approved by the department.

2. The court shall forward the abstract of conviction to the department and may order the department to suspend the person's driving privilege for thirty days.

D. If a person who is convicted of a violation of this section has been previously convicted of a violation of this section within a period of twenty-four months:

1. The person is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor.

2. In addition to any other penalty prescribed by law, the court shall forward the abstract of conviction to the department. On receipt of the abstract of conviction, the department shall revoke the driving privilege of the person for one year.

E. The dates of the commission of the offense determine whether subsection D of this section applies. A second or subsequent violation for which a conviction occurs as provided in this section does not include a conviction for an offense arising out of the same series of acts.

F. For the purposes of this section "course of conduct" means a series of acts committed during a single, continuous period of driving.28-695

Original and more Arizona Laws here

The Illinois Law on Reporting Accidents
that May Have Been Caused by a Medical Condition

In the past several years there have been several serious traffic accidents caused by a driver that lost control of the car. Often we see drivers that demonstrate an inability to drive safely. On July 1, 1997, legislation was passed by the state of Illinois that requires police officers to notify the Secretary of State of any accident that may have been caused by a medical condition or other condition that would cause the officer to believe that the driver should be re-examined.

The act of taking away a person's driving privileges is taken very seriously. We have become a very mobile society. Losing one's license to drive greatly limits one's freedom to get around. There must be "good cause" for an officer to request that a driver be re-examined. For this to occur, an officer has to observe or investigate an accident or incident where the following conditions exist.

* An officer observes or investigates an accident and determines the accident was a result of a blackout, seizure or attack of unconsciousness. Upon receipt of this report, the Medical Review Unit of the Secretary of State's office will immediately cancel the driver's license.

* An officer observes or investigates an accident and determines the cause of the accident was not a blackout or seizure, but another type of medical condition including a mental or vision condition that could result in the unsafe operation of a vehicle. Upon receipt of this report the Medical Review Unit will request that the driver submit to a medical exam.

* An officer observes or investigates an accident or incident and determines the driver may lack the driving ability or knowledge of traffic laws necessary to safely operate a vehicle. In this case, the Special License and Re-examination Unit will order the driver to be re-examined.

* An officer observes or investigates an accident or incident during which the driver has displayed a lack of attention or performed a dangerous driving act. Upon receipt of this report the driver will be ordered to be re-examined.

Failure to comply with an order to be re-examined, or to submit a medical report as requested, will result in the loss of your license. It is the intent of the police agencies and the Secretary of State to promote traffic safety in Illinois. This law is only one new tool that the police officer may use to get unsafe drivers off the road.

Original here

Note:  I kept the language typed in by the respondents, but I lumped similar versions that refer to basically the same act.    You'll note, however, that additional lumping together is possible, depending your situation.  The purpose of this list is to help law enforcement become familiar with how motorists describe each other's behavior.  This type of empirical list can also be consulted when considering the language of aggressive driving legislation--see above.   You can obtain more examples from my article on the Nine Zones of Driving Behavior.

1. people who don't know how to drive through four-way stops
2. putting on the turn signal a mile early
3. slowing down then speeding up then slowing down then speeding up then slowing down
4. talking on hand held cell phone when traffic is congested
5. hostile --not merging when lanes are closed until last possible second
6. aggressive braking or acceleration
7. being rude
8. blocking (driveways, turns, passing lane, street, entrance ramp)
9. cutting into your lane then slowing down (cutting off or cutting too close or cutting in slowing down)
10. following too close
11. general disregard for anyone else on the road
12. gestures intended to insult the other driver
13. going slow in the fast lane (or hogging)
14. having bright lights on (not lowering them)
15. honking (when they shouldn't)
16. jamming in front rather than waiting in line
17. jockeying for position at the red light
18. never giving any one a break
19. not allowing me to change lanes
20. not concentrating on what is occurring on the road.
21. not getting out of the passing lane when a car is coming up fast behind them
22. not letting you into a lane
23. not paying attention
24. obscene gestures
25. passing dangerously
26. passing too close
27. passing unsafely, just being plain stupid
28. pedestrian abuse--being rude to walkers who have the right of way
29. preoccupied
30. preventing passing
31. reckless driving
32. shining bright lights
33. slamming on brakes
34. speeding up to beat the traffic light
35. speeding up when one is trying to change lanes so that you have to wait and enter the lane behind them
36. stereo too loud
37. thoughtless and in a hurry
38. trying to run over me
39. wanting to just slam on the brakes when people are tailgating me
40. yelling (cursing, yelling back)
41. disobeying traffic laws
42. double parking
43. driving on your side of the road-forcing you to stop
44. failure to yield
45. going through red lights
46. going too fast
47. lane changing in a reckless manner without signaling or erratically or weaving through traffic
48. not keeping up with speed limit (too fast or too slow)
49. not stopping at stop signs
50. not yielding
51. passing on a double yellow line
52. passing on the right shoulder when a car is turning left
53. racing on the freeway
54. running red lights
55. tailgating
56. turning without signaling
57. running late
58. showing off their car
59. want to get somewhere fast, rushing, being impatient
60. being inattentive.
61. being boxed in
62. blocking passing lane (holding up traffic in the left lane)
63. closing the gap (speeding up to prevent a vehicle from changing lanes, even when the lane-changer has signal on)
64. confrontational
65. cursing
66. cutting drivers off (slowing down in front of me)
67. double parking in rush hour.
68. driving slow (5-10 mph under speed limit even under good conditions)
69. not being considerate of other drivers
70. failure to keep right
71. following too closely (sometimes with brights on)
72. gesturing insults
73. going under the speed limit when it’s not necessary
74. honking
75. honking when at a red light
76. leaving their brights on at night
77. making a complete stop just to turn a corner
78. merging at the last minute with 1/2 mile warning
79. not signaling when changing lanes or making turns
80. not slowing down for pedestrians (even in a marked crosswalk)
81. not