www.cops.usdoj.gov

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

Problem-Specific Guides Series

No. 61

Aggressive Driving

Colleen Laing

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

Problem-Specific Guides Series

No. 61

Aggressive Driving

Colleen Laing

This project was supported by cooperative agreement 

2007-CK-WX-K008 by the U.S. Department of Justice Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services (the COPS Office). The 

opinions contained herein are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. Department 

of Justice. References to specific companies, products, or services 

should not be considered an endorsement of the product by the 

author or the U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, the references 

are illustrations to supplement discussion of the issues.

The Internet references cited in this publication were valid as of 

April 2010. Given that URLs and web sites are in constant flux, 

neither the author nor the COPS Office can vouch for their 

current validity.

© 2010 Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, Inc. The U.S. 

Department of Justice reserves a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and 

irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use, and 

authorize others to use, this publication for Federal Government 

purposes. This publication may be freely distributed and used for 

noncommercial and educational purposes.

www.cops.usdoj.gov

ISBN: 978-1-935676-18-8

June 2010

About the Problem-Specific Guides Series i

About the Problem-Specific 

Guide Series

The Problem-Specific Guides summarize knowledge about how 

police can reduce the harm caused by specific crime and disorder 

problems. They are guides to prevention and to improving the 

overall response to incidents, not to investigating offenses or 

handling specific incidents. Neither do they cover all of the 

technical details about how to implement specific responses. The 

guides are written for police—of whatever rank or assignment—

who must address the specific problem the guides cover. The 

guides will be most useful to officers who:

• Understand basic problem-oriented policing principles 

and methods. The guides are not primers in problemoriented policing. They deal only briefly with the initial 

decision to focus on a particular problem, methods to 

analyze the problem, and means to assess the results of 

a problem-oriented policing project. They are designed 

to help police decide how best to analyze and address a 

problem they have already identified. (A companion series 

of Problem-Solving Tools guides has been produced to aid 

in various aspects of problem analysis and assessment.)

• Can look at a problem in depth. Depending on the 

complexity of the problem, you should be prepared to spend 

perhaps weeks, or even months, analyzing and responding to 

it. Carefully studying a problem before responding helps you 

design the right strategy, one that is most likely to work in your 

community. You should not blindly adopt the responses others 

have used; you must decide whether they are appropriate to 

your local situation. What is true in one place may not be true 

elsewhere; what works in one place may not work everywhere.
ii Aggressive Driving

• Are willing to consider new ways of doing police business.

The guides describe responses that other police departments 

have used or that researchers have tested. While not all of these 

responses will be appropriate to your particular problem, they 

should help give a broader view of the kinds of things you 

could do. You may think you cannot implement some of these 

responses in your jurisdiction, but perhaps you can. In many 

places, when police have discovered a more effective response, 

they have succeeded in having laws and policies changed, 

improving the response to the problem. (A companion series of 

Response Guides has been produced to help you understand how 

commonly-used police responses work on a variety of problems.) 

• Understand the value and the limits of research knowledge.

For some types of problems, a lot of useful research is available 

to the police; for other problems, little is available. Accordingly, 

some guides in this series summarize existing research whereas 

other guides illustrate the need for more research on that 

particular problem. Regardless, research has not provided 

definitive answers to all the questions you might have about the 

problem. The research may help get you started in designing 

your own responses, but it cannot tell you exactly what to do. 

This will depend greatly on the particular nature of your local 

problem. In the interest of keeping the guides readable, not 

every piece of relevant research has been cited, nor has every 

point been attributed to its sources. To have done so would have 

overwhelmed and distracted the reader. The references listed 

at the end of each guide are those drawn on most heavily; they 

are not a complete bibliography of research on the subject. 

• Are willing to work with others to find effective solutions 

to the problem. The police alone cannot implement many of 

the responses discussed in the guides. They must frequently 

implement them in partnership with other responsible private 

and public bodies including other government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, private businesses, public utilities, 

community groups, and individual citizens. An effective 

problem-solver must know how to forge genuine partnerships 

with others and be prepared to invest considerable effort 
About the Problem-Specific Guides Series iii

in making these partnerships work. Each guide identifies 

particular individuals or groups in the community with 

whom police might work to improve the overall response to 

that problem. Thorough analysis of problems often reveals 

that individuals and groups other than the police are in a 

stronger position to address problems and that police ought 

to shift some greater responsibility to them to do so. Response 

Guide No. 3, Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for Public 

Safety Problems, provides further discussion of this topic.

The COPS Office defines community policing as “a philosophy that 

promotes organizational strategies, which support the systematic 

use of partnerships and problem-solving techniques, to proactively 

address the immediate conditions that give rise to public safety 

issues such as crime, social disorder, and fear of crime.” These guides 

emphasize problem-solving and police-community partnerships in 

the context of addressing specific public safety problems. For the 

most part, the organizational strategies that can facilitate problemsolving and police-community partnerships vary considerably and 

discussion of them is beyond the scope of these guides.

These guides have drawn on research findings and police practices 

in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New 

Zealand, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia. Even though laws, 

customs and police practices vary from country to country, it is 

apparent that the police everywhere experience common problems. 

In a world that is becoming increasingly interconnected, it is 

important that police be aware of research and successful practices 

beyond the borders of their own countries.

Each guide is informed by a thorough review of the research literature 

and reported police practice, and each guide is anonymously peerreviewed by a line police officer, a police executive and a researcher 

prior to publication. The review process is independently managed by 

the COPS Office, which solicits the reviews. 
iv Aggressive Driving

For more information about problem-oriented policing, visit the 

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing online at www.popcenter.org. 

This website offers free online access to:

• the Problem-Specific Guides series,

• the companion Response Guides and Problem-Solving 

Tools series, 

• special publications on crime analysis and on policing terrorism,

• instructional information about problem-oriented policing and 

related topics, 

• an interactive problem-oriented policing training exercise,

• an interactive Problem Analysis Module, 

• online access to important police research and practices, and

• information about problem-oriented policing conferences and 

award programs. 
Acknowledgments

The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police are produced by the Center 

for Problem-Oriented Policing, whose officers are Michael S. Scott 

(Director), Ronald V. Clarke (Associate Director) and Graeme R. 

Newman (Associate Director). While each guide has a primary 

author, other project team members, COPS Office staff and 

anonymous peer reviewers contributed to each guide by proposing 

text, recommending research and offering suggestions on matters of 

format and style.

The project team that developed the guide series comprised 

Herman Goldstein (University of Wisconsin Law School), 

Ronald V. Clarke (Rutgers University), John E. Eck (University 

of Cincinnati), Michael S. Scott (University of Wisconsin Law 

School), Rana Sampson (Police Consultant), and Deborah Lamm 

Weisel (North Carolina State University).

Members of the San Diego; National City, California; and 

Savannah, Georgia police departments provided feedback on the 

guides' format and style in the early stages of the project.

Debra Cohen, Ph.D. oversaw the project for the COPS Office 

and research for the guides was conducted at the Criminal Justice 

Library at Rutgers University by Phyllis Schultze. Suzanne Fregly 

edited this guide.

Acknowledgments v

Contents vii

Contents

About the Problem-Specific Guide Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .v

The Problem of Aggressive Driving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

What This Guide Does and Does Not Cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

General Description of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Prevalence of Aggressive Driving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Harms Caused by Aggressive Driving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Factors Contributing to Aggressive Driving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Frustration and Anger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Personality or Individual Traits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Environmental Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Situational Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Cultural Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Multiple Causes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Understanding Your Local Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Asking the Right Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Incidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Victims/Complainants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Locations/Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Current Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Measuring Your Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Responses to the Problem of Aggressive Driving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

General Considerations for an Effective Response Strategy . . . . . . . . .17

Specific Responses To Reduce Aggressive Driving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

Enforcing Traffic Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

Enhancing Legislation and Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

Removing or Modifying Environmental and Situational Triggers . . .24

Educating Drivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

Enhancing the Consequences of Aggressive Driving . . . . . . . . . .30

Responses with Limited Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
viii Aggressive Driving

Appendix: Summary of Responses to Aggressive Driving . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

About the Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49
The Problem of Aggressive Driving 1

The Problem of Aggressive Driving

What This Guide Does and Does Not Cover

This guide begins by describing the problem of aggressive driving 

and reviewing factors that increase its risks. It then identifies a 

series of questions to help you analyze your local aggressive driving 

problem. Finally, it reviews responses to the problem and what is 

known about these from evaluative research and police practice. 

Aggressive driving includes what is commonly referred to as road 

rage, which involves assault motivated by driver anger. This guide 

covers aggressive driving and the driving-related triggers for road 

rage. Aggressive driving has gained widespread public attention 

over the past 20 years largely due to highly publicized crashes and 

crimes associated with road rage.

Aggressive driving is but one aspect of the larger set of problems 

related to impaired, dangerous, and irresponsible vehicle use. 

This guide is limited to addressing the particular harms aggressive 

driving creates. Related problems not directly addressed in this 

guide, each of which requires separate analysis, include:

• drunken and impaired driving,

• reckless driving,

• joyriding,

• speeding,

• street racing,

• unlicensed driving,

• hit-and-run crashes,

• red-signal and stop-sign violations, and

• inattentive driving.

Other guides in this series—all of which are listed at the end of this 

guide—cover some of these related problems. For the most up-todate listing of current and future guides, see www.popcenter.org. 
2 Aggressive Driving

General Description of the Problem

Aggressive driving refers to dangerous driving that disregards 

safety and courtesy. The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration defines aggressive driving as occurring “when 

individuals commit a combination of moving traffic offenses so as 

to endanger other persons or property.”1 Driving behaviors that 

commonly constitute aggressive driving include: 

• speeding,

• racing,

• frequently changing lanes,

• cutting off other drivers,

• failing to signal,

• running red lights,

• failing to yield,

• tailgating,

• slowing rapidly to discourage a tailgater, and

• boxing other cars in and using other intimidation maneuvers.2

In addition, aggressive drivers may further try to intimidate their 

victims by shouting or making obscene gestures at them. Several 

different legislatively-defined driving offenses are similar in some 

ways to aggressive driving. While statutory definitions vary from 

state to state, they include the following:

Careless, inattentive, distracted, or negligent driving involves failing 

to exercise normal care, or endangering people or property, while 

driving a vehicle. Many states are adding to their statutes specific 

language prohibiting use of certain technologies while driving. 

Some states include negligent driving under reckless or impaired 

driving statutes so that defendants plead to the lesser negligentdriving charge to avoid the more serious charge.

Reckless driving is a more serious form of careless or negligent 

driving. It is variously defined as creating a substantial or 

unjustifiable risk of harm, a conscious or wanton disregard of safety, 

and/or a gross deviation from reasonable behavior in the situation.
The Problem of Aggressive Driving 3

Aggressive driving addresses many of the same behaviors covered by 

reckless driving statutes, but adds a notion of a pattern of behaviors 

occurring over a short period and/or intention. As intention is 

difficult to prove, states with statutes that require the standard of 

intention be met often see aggressive driving charged as reckless 

driving. Driving behaviors included in the definition of aggressive 

driving could result from aggression, selfishness, or competition.

As many of the behaviors that constitute aggressive driving could 

also occur in the absence of aggression (if a driver is inattentive, for 

example), some state legislatures use a threshold of three or more 

potentially aggressive driving behaviors committed in a sequence 

or over a short period in their statutory definitions. Aggressive 

driving definitions should cover hostile, competitive, and selfishly 

motivated driving behaviors. 

Road rage is a more extreme form of aggression that involves 

criminal intimidation and/or violence precipitated by driving 

activities. Road rage involves an intent to harm, can involve use 

of the vehicle as a weapon, or can take place outside the vehicle(s) 

involved.

Driving provokes anger more often than other activities.3 Driving 

is a goal-oriented activity, the purpose being to get from point A 

to point B expeditiously; yet people easily and frequently thwart 

driving goals. Driving is also a stressful activity that exposes drivers 

and passengers to potentially significant dangers. Incivility amongst 

drivers is common4 and reliably provokes anger in its recipients. For 

all these reasons, drivers report frequently feeling angry.5

Anger may, but usually does not, lead to aggressive driving or road 

rage. Situational, cultural, and individual factors combine to cause 

angry drivers to behave aggressively behind the wheel. 
4 Aggressive Driving

Prevalence of Aggressive Driving 

Two-thirds of traffic fatalities involve behaviors commonly 

associated with aggressive driving, such as speeding, running red 

lights, and improperly changing lanes.6 One-third of all traffic 

injuries result from aggressive driving.7 Speeding, a common 

element in aggressive driving, contributes to about one-third of 

fatal crashes.8

Several studies have shown that somewhere between 20 percent 

and 35 percent of drivers have honked their horns, yelled, obscenely 

gestured, and cursed at other drivers. Estimates indicate that from 

6 percent to 28 percent of drivers have tailgated or blocked other 

drivers’ vehicles.9 These behaviors can be part of a pattern of acts 

that constitute aggressive driving, and they can also provoke anger 

that could lead to aggressive driving in others.

Research findings are mixed on whether aggressive driving is more 

prevalent today than in the past. What is known is that aggressive 

driving occurs frequently and is a significant contributor to injury 

and fatality collisions. While the violent and assaultive acts that 

constitute road rage are rare, they deserve police attention. 

Harms Caused by Aggressive Driving 

Car crashes are the leading cause of accidental death and injury 

in the United States and the leading cause of all deaths amongst 

young people.10 Aggressive driving is responsible for a significant 

proportion of all car crashes. Aggressive drivers kill two to four 

times more people than drunken drivers.11 Aggressive driving 

creates an atmosphere of incivility on the roads, heightening driving 

anxiety and triggering more driving anger. 

Factors Contributing to Aggressive Driving

Understanding the factors that contribute to your problem will 

help you frame your own local analysis questions, determine good 

effectiveness measures, recognize key intervention points, and select 

appropriate responses.
The Problem of Aggressive Driving 5

Frustration and Anger

Frustration at being slowed or thwarted from a driving goal 

can easily lead to anger.12 Frustration can also lead to selfish or 

competitive aggressive behavior—behavior designed to achieve 

personal driving goals at the expense of others or the common good. 

Frustration and anger do not, however, always result in aggression. 

Driving aggression occurs when a mix of personal, situational, 

environmental, and cultural factors combine to reduce the 

inhibitions most drivers feel against acting aggressively. Personal 

factors such as antisocial and competitive tendencies can make 

a driver prone to aggression, but aggression is unlikely to result 

absent other contributing factors. Environmental factors such 

as the anonymity cars provide, situational factors such as feeling 

urgent about meeting driving goals, and cultural factors such as 

approval for placing personal goals over the common good can 

all contribute to lower the qualms drivers would otherwise have 

against aggressive behavior. 

Demographics

Research suggests that the single largest group of aggressive 

American drivers is poorly educated white men under 30 years 

old who drive high-performance vehicles.13 There is a strong 

correlation between such young white men and violent crimes, 

serious traffic offenses, license suspensions, and minor moving 

violations. These young white men also appear to be the most likely 

group to engage in more extreme road rage behaviors.14 They may 

be more prone to have antisocial, hostile personalities (as described 

in the next section). In general, younger people tend to lack the 

impulse control gained with age, and men tend toward more 

aggressive behavior than women. 

Because members of this group so often break traffic laws, they will 

be disproportionately represented in any traffic enforcement effort. 

Accordingly, police officers will contact the most dangerous drivers 

by enforcing the entire range of moving violations.15
6 Aggressive Driving

While young white men are the largest single group of aggressive 

drivers, there is no single definitive profile of aggressive-driving 

perpetrators.16 Otherwise law-abiding citizens commit many 

aggressive driving acts.17

Personality or Individual Traits 

There appear to be two primary personality types prone to 

becoming aggressive behind the wheel. One is an antisocial, hostile 

personality; the other, a competitive one.18 Antisocial drivers are 

associated with the young white male group. There is significant 

overlap between the factors associated with antisocial driving and 

those associated with criminal behavior.19 These include:

• impulsiveness,

• sensation-seeking,

• unrealistic thinking (underestimating risks and overrating 

abilities to handle problems),

• poor problem-solving skills,

• egocentricity (lacking concern for others’ well-being), and

• values (caring only about oneself ).20

This antisocial group of drivers is prone to hostile aggression in and 

out of their vehicles. Antisocial drivers have high rates of accidents 

and violations and are many times more likely than the general 

driving population to have criminal histories.21

Retaliation and revenge are common motives for antisocial drivers 

who feel disrespected, slighted, infringed-upon, or endangered. 

This same motive is common in domestic violence, gang violence, 

theft, and arson.22 Seemingly trivial events such as perceived insults 

to drivers’ self-image or safety most often provoke driving anger. 

These triggering events tap into a deep well of anger already present 

in the antisocial driver.
The Problem of Aggressive Driving 7

§

See Problem-Specific Guide No. 3, 

Speeding in Residential Areas, 2nd 

Edition, for further information.

Triggering incidents can include frustrations such as slow, hesitant, 

or distracted drivers; scares such as near-collisions; offensive 

behaviors such as rude gestures; and territorial encroachments 

such as competing for a parking space or failure to yield.23 These 

acts are not intrinsically aggression-inducing; it is the way a person 

interprets them and how the person reacts to that interpretation 

that causes the acts to trigger aggression.24

The second group of aggressive drivers appears prone to socially 

approved forms of aggression such as competition, which can 

easily be translated into aggressive driving behaviors. Competitive 

drivers dislike being passed, enjoy the thrill of speeding, and lack 

the internal controls to override their competitiveness on the road. 

Research has shown that both the antisocial and the competitive 

drivers have significantly more accidents and traffic violations than 

the general driving public.25

Environmental Conditions 

A tendency toward aggression or competitiveness is not sufficient 

to cause aggressive driving. Environmental, situational, or cultural 

factors must come into play before someone with such tendencies 

will be triggered to drive aggressively. 

The car’s and the road’s physical environment can either facilitate 

or inhibit the expression of aggression while driving. Manipulating 

environmental conditions can inhibit antisocial and competitive 

drivers from driving aggressively. 

The lack of negative reinforcement (citations) for aggressive driving 

can also contribute to a driver’s likelihood to engage in it. Given 

the high number of aggressive driving actions and the relatively low 

number of police officers, the probability of officers’ detecting any 

particular aggressive driving action is rather low.26

Street design can facilitate or inhibit speeding. For example, drivers 

are likely to speed on wide streets with long, straight stretches.27

Conversely, traffic-calming devices compel drivers to slow down 

and exercise skill and attention to the road.§
8 Aggressive Driving

Road conditions can increase driver frustration. Bottlenecks, lack of 

signs indicating the source of unexpected congestion, short greenlight intervals, confusing intersections (such as roundabouts), and 

stretches of uncoordinated traffic lights can trigger aggression. 

The social environment also influences driving behavior. Driving 

is a social activity, and good driving depends on accurate 

interpretation of social cues, without which drivers are unable to 

judge what others are likely to do. Antisocial drivers may be unable 

to accurately anticipate others’ moves on the road. 

Paradoxically, while driving is a social activity, drivers are isolated 

from each other. This isolation lessens the impact of cultural norms 

that prevent uncivil behavior in other social settings.28 Anonymity 

is the most significant social factor mediating aggressive driving. A 

driver in a convertible is more likely to feel constrained by social 

conventions concerning driving behavior than is a driver in an 

enclosed vehicle with darkly tinted windows.

Situational Factors

Technologies such as mobile phones and e-mail devices have 

combined with economic pressures to compress many drivers’ 

conception of time, creating intense pressure to make every minute 

productive. Commuting time, for many drivers, is the last frontier 

of unexploited time, and the perception that commuting time is 

lost or wasted time contributes to aggressive efforts to shorten 

commutes.29 Time pressure or urgency to achieve a driving 

goal—such as getting to work or home quickly—combines with 

frustrating factors such as congestion to trigger aggression in 

antisocial and competitive drivers.30

There is a wide variety of situational variables that can create or 

promote situational aggression. For example, heat, noise, or other 

annoying environmental conditions can make drivers irritable and 

increase the likelihood that a driver will resort to violence when 

feeling irritated or threatened on the road.31 These conditions can 

goad drivers who tend to have aggression issues toward violent 

responses to provocative events.32
The Problem of Aggressive Driving 9

The most significant triggering events for road rage are relatively 

minor. They include aggressive tailgating (62% of cases), headlight 

flashing (60% of cases), deliberately obstructing other vehicles 

(21% of cases), and verbally abusing other drivers (16% of cases).33

In short, aggressive driving begets aggressive driving. 

Antisocial and competitive drivers don’t commit all aggressive driving 

acts. Ordinary people in extreme situations, including impaired, 

stressed, and time-pressured drivers, commit some of them. 

There is significant overlap between aggressive and violent drivers 

and their victims. One study found that road rage offenders were 

more than five times as likely as the general population to have 

been past victims of a road rage incident.34 Vigilantism constitutes 

a common form of retaliatory road rage, where an otherwise 

responsible driver decides to teach an aggressive driver a lesson by 

returning the aggression. 

In the absence of intensive enforcement of driving laws, victims 

of aggressive driving sometimes dangerously overreact. Drivers 

who would express their frustration in less harmful ways in other 

situations find they have no outlet for expressing anger while 

driving except by engaging in aggressive driving themselves. It is 

equally difficult for drivers who frustrate or inconvenience others—

intentionally or not—to communicate remorse while driving, 

which, if they could, might well defuse other drivers’ aggression.35

One common aggressive driving trigger does not even occur on 

the road. Parking rage can arise in busy parking lots or those with 

cramped spaces. Parking tends to trigger territorial and competitive 

behavior, which can lead to confrontations.36 Anecdotal evidence 

indicates that the general driving public is most likely to engage in 

aggressive driving in parking lots.37
10 Aggressive Driving

Cultural Factors

Culture influences aggressive behavior by shaping how the aggressor 

interprets triggering events and by influencing whether the aggressor 

believes a violent response is culturally acceptable in a given situation. 

To the extent the culture values convenience, individuality over the 

common good, primacy of cars over bicycles, fast-paced lifestyles, 

and competition, it promotes aggressive driving. 

Some researchers have characterized American culture as 

contentious, argumentative, and disrespectful,38 and the American 

media as portraying aggressive driving in a positive light, thereby 

creating aggressive role models. Risky-driver role models create 

cultural norms accepting of dangerous and threatening driving 

behavior.39 Currently, mainstream society does not stigmatize 

vehicle crimes in the same way as other crimes. Popular media 

portray aggressive driving as cool, thereby implying social approval, 

especially to young drivers. 

Multiple Causes

While each of the above factors contributes to aggressive driving, 

none alone explains it. A complex dynamic operates whereby 

individual traits, situational circumstances, car- and road-related 

factors, and cultural influences all interrelate to build up to 

aggressive action or excessive risk-taking while driving. Sitting 

in traffic on a very hot day with no air-conditioning might be 

irritating, for example, but in the absence of a triggering event that 

taps into an antisocial outlook or competitive instinct, aggressive 

acts are unlikely to occur. Being cut off in traffic is a potential 

trigger, but without latent aggression and a stressful or irritating 

environment, aggressive driving is again unlikely to occur.
Understanding Your Local Problem 11

Understanding Your Local Problem 

Effective responses to aggressive driving will take into account 

the preceding general information about the dynamics and 

contributing factors to it, as well as a specific understanding of your 

local problem. An analysis of the local problem will shape the most 

effective response possible in your jurisdiction.

Responses tend to work best when based on sound data about 

problem behaviors, locations, times of day, physical features, and 

offender characteristics in your locale. 

Stakeholders

In addition to criminal justice agencies, the following groups have 

an interest in the aggressive driving problem, and you should 

consider them for the contribution they might make to gathering 

information about the problem and responding to it.

Elected officials can gauge public concern about the problem and 

enact legislation to address it.

The media can call attention to aggressive driving issues and how to 

avoid becoming a victim or a perpetrator.

State and local motor vehicle and highway safety departments may 

have conducted their own studies of the problem and can identify 

and mitigate the physical environmental factors that contribute to 

aggressive driving.

Transportation safety advocates may also have conducted studies of 

the problem and can raise awareness about aggressive driving, and 

work with states and localities to reduce the factors that contribute 

to it.

Private businesses, including business associations, have a stake in 

ensuring employees can commute to their jobs safely and efficiently. 

They can partner with states and localities in addressing aggressive 

driving issues and disseminating information to employers, 

especially to businesses that have vehicle fleets.
12 Aggressive Driving

Private businesses, including cellular phone and data companies, 

which keep records on electronic device use, can be partners in 

providing evidence after violations.

Motor vehicle insurance companies benefit financially when traffic 

collisions are reduced. They can partner with police to fund 

research on aggressive driving, develop community education 

materials, and include information on aggressive driving in their 

publications.

Road construction contractors can work with police to design road 

construction sites and traffic detours to minimize traffic disruptions 

and optimize safety.

Auto clubs can educate members about ways to avoid being either a 

victim or a perpetrator of aggressive driving.

Victims’ advocacy organizations can collect data on aggressive driving 

victimization for use in assessing the extent and severity of a locale’s 

problem.

Public health agencies’ and hospitals’ injury prevention staff can 

conduct research on the prevalence of aggressive driving, its 

contribution to injuries, and the injuries’ social and cost impacts. 

These data can support police problem-solving efforts.

Asking the Right Questions

The following are some critical questions you should ask in 

analyzing your particular problem of aggressive driving, even if the 

answers are not always readily available. Your answers to these and 

other questions will help you choose the most appropriate set of 

responses later on. The various entities with a stake in the problem 

and its solution can help you collect some of these data, as not all of 

the information will be readily available to police.

If you rely solely on traffic crash and citation data, recognize that 

you will not have a complete picture of the problem, as much 

aggressive driving goes undetected, unenforced, or unreported.
Understanding Your Local Problem 13

Incidents

• How many aggressive driving incidents occur in your 

jurisdiction? How many do other motorists report to 

police? How many do police discover during a vehicle crash 

investigation? How many unreported incidents are estimated 

to occur? (You would need to conduct a survey of motorists to 

obtain this information.)

• What harms do you know aggressive driving is causing in your 

jurisdiction? Vehicle crashes? Injuries? Psychological trauma 

(e.g., fear)?

• Who brings the incidents to police attention? Are they mostly 

on-views, technology-initiated, citizen-reported, or some 

combination?

• What are the most prevalent and/or most dangerous aggressive 

driving behaviors in your jurisdiction?

• What types of events trigger the aggressive driving incidents?

• How concerned is the community about aggressive driving?

Offenders

• Are there certain driver profiles that stand out in your 

jurisdiction (e.g., the antisocial or competitive drivers described 

earlier)?

• What do aggressive drivers say about their motivations for 

driving aggressively?

• What proportion of cited aggressive drivers are repeat offenders? 
14 Aggressive Driving

Victims/Complainants

• Are most victims/complainants also engaging in aggressive 

driving behaviors before documented incidents?

• Are most victims/complainants engaging in nonaggressive 

behaviors that typically irritate other drivers (e.g., driving slowly 

in the left lane)?

• What do you know about the demographics of victims/

complainants (e.g., age, gender, race, and ethnicity)?

• Are there any tensions among different demographic groups 

contributing to the aggressive driving complaints?

Locations/Times

• Where do aggressive driving incidents typically occur?

• Are there environmental factors at hot spots that contribute 

to the incidence of aggressive driving (e.g., road construction, 

confusing intersections, congested roads)? 

• Are there situational factors related to the location that 

contribute to the incidence of aggressive driving?

• Are most incidents on freeways, arterials, collectors, or 

residential streets?

• When do most incidents occur (time of day, day of week, special 

occasions, seasons)? What is it about these times that contribute 

to aggressive driving?

Current Responses

• How do police respond to aggressive driving complaints?

• To what extent do police officers actively look for and intervene 

in aggressive driving?

• How many citations/arrests do police issue/make for aggressive 

driving offenses?

• What penalties or other sentences are typically imposed on 

those convicted for aggressive driving offenses?
Understanding Your Local Problem 15

Measuring Your Effectiveness

Measurement allows you to determine to what degree your efforts 

have succeeded, and suggests how you might modify your responses 

if they are not producing the intended results. 

You should take measures of your problem before you implement 

responses, to determine how serious the problem is, and after

you implement them, to determine whether they have been 

effective. You should take all measures in both the target 

area and the surrounding area. For more detailed guidance on 

measuring effectiveness, see the Problem-Solving Tools Guide 

No. 1, Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guide 

for Police Problem-Solvers.

The following are potentially useful measures of the effectiveness of 

responses to aggressive driving:

• reduced number of crashes in which aggressive driving is a 

contributing/causal factor, broken down by property damage 

only, injury, and fatality;

• reduced severity of injuries;

• reduced number of citizen reports and requests for police 

response (these may increase initially if citizens are encouraged 

to report aggressive driving more often); and

• improved driver perceptions of safety.

Responses to the Problem of Aggressive Driving 17

Responses to the Problem of Aggressive 

Driving 

Your analysis of your local problem should give you a better 

understanding of the factors contributing to it. Once you have 

analyzed your local problem and established a baseline for 

measuring effectiveness, you should consider possible responses to 

address the problem. 

The following response strategies provide a foundation of ideas 

for addressing your particular problem. These strategies are drawn 

from a variety of research studies and police reports. Several of 

these strategies may apply to your community’s problem. 

It is critical that you tailor responses to local circumstances, and 

that you can justify each response based on reliable analysis. In 

most cases, an effective strategy will involve implementing several 

different responses. Law enforcement responses alone are seldom 

effective in reducing or solving the problem. 

Do not limit yourself to considering what police can do: carefully 

consider whether others in your community share responsibility 

for the problem and can help police better respond to it. In some 

cases, you made need to shift the responsibility of responding 

toward those who have the capacity to implement more-effective 

responses. (For more-detailed information on shifting and sharing 

responsibility, see Response Guide No. 3, Shifting and Sharing 

Responsibility for Public Safety Problems.)

General Considerations for an Effective 

Response Strategy

There are several response strategies that can effectively address 

aggressive driving, including enforcement, legislation, environmental 

and situational factors, public education, and judicial responses. 

A comprehensive strategy that blends tactics from each of these 

components and that addresses psychological, environmental, 

situational, and cultural factors is most likely to be effective.
18 Aggressive Driving

A comprehensive aggressive driving intervention should focus 

on reducing the likelihood that drivers will act aggressively and 

the aspects of the driving environment that precipitate aggressive 

behavior. A focus on drivers can occur at the individual or aggregate 

level. At the individual level, enforcement and sanctions can modify 

the behavior of identified aggressive drivers. At the aggregate 

level, data analysis can identify hot spots for targeted saturation 

and emphasis enforcement, and public education can impact 

group behavior. A focus on the driving environment can lead to 

interventions that mitigate the physical and social environments 

and situational stressors that contribute to aggressive driving.

Specific Responses To Reduce Aggressive Driving 

Enforcing Traffic Laws

Traffic enforcement to address aggressive driving has three 

primary goals: 

• to deter the cited driver from driving aggressively again in the 

future,

• to deter other drivers who learn about police enforcement from 

driving aggressively, and

• to remove aggressive drivers from the roads while they are angry 

and most dangerous. 

Deterrence is advanced through significant fines or other 

consequences such as jail time, and through high-visibility 

enforcement. 

Enforcement provides only partial deterrence to aggressive driving 

because of police staffing limitations. Most of the time, police do 

not catch drivers who violate the law. Risk-inclined drivers are less 

likely than the general driving population to accurately gauge the 

likelihood of being caught.
Responses to the Problem of Aggressive Driving 19

If you are considering emphasizing aggressive driving enforcement, 

you should narrowly define the scope of the intervention, deciding 

which observable behaviors and sites you should target, what the 

ticketing threshold will be, what information you will collect, what 

type of enforcement you will deploy, what deployment schedule 

you should use, and what planned project to implement. 

You should also consider what types of partners should be involved; 

whether you will undertake efforts to educate the general public as 

part of the project; what type of education and sanctions will be 

in place for offenders; and whether construction, weather, or other 

situational variables are likely to affect the project.

Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping of aggressive 

driving hot spots can help you target your efforts where the need 

is greatest. You can identify hot spots based on information such 

as traffic or speed survey findings, collision and fatality data, and 

citation data. You can compare aggressive driving or road rage hot 

spots with felony and drug crime hot spots to increase the value of 

hot-spot enforcement.

1. Deploying surveillance technologies. Surveillance 

technologies can increase the pervasiveness of enforcement, 

creating greater saturation and increasing both the likelihood 

of apprehending offenders and their perception of that 

likelihood. This increased saturation enhances deterrence. 

You can use surveillance technologies for automatic enforcement 

through mailed citations. They also help you collect data about 

aggressive driving behaviors such as speeding and running red lights. 

There is a variety of surveillance technologies you can use to 

apprehend and deter aggressive drivers, such as the following:

• Red-light photo-enforcement cameras.

• Automatic number-plate recognition technology in aggressivedriving hot spots.
20 Aggressive Driving

• Closed circuit television or CCTV at aggressive-driving hot 

spots, construction zones, or high-collision intersections that can 

detect unusual traffic patterns and illegal maneuvers and capture 

license plate data for automatic enforcement or mailed warnings.

• Video-equipped patrol cars recording drivers’ behavior and 

police stops.

• Video-equipped unmarked cars to follow aggressive drivers 

before marked-car vehicle stops.

• Tailgating detection devices for fleet vehicles.

• Road sensors and cameras working in concert to detect illegal 

passing.

• Helicopter-mounted cameras that can download clear license 

plate number photos into patrol vehicles. 

• Electronic speed displays attached to speed-limit signs.

• Crash reconstruction software that allows investigators to clear 

congested roads quickly.

• Downstream lights that allow traffic enforcement officers to cite 

red-light runners without being physically present in dangerous 

intersections.

• Telephone-reporting hotlines connected with police followup procedures such as keeping a database for use in future 

investigations, mailing citations, mailing warnings, or mailing 

anger-management or aggressive-driving-avoidance tip cards.

• Data from vehicles equipped with event data recorders (EDR) 

could be subpoenaed to support aggressive driving investigations 

and prosecutions. Data typically recorded include whether 

the driver was speeding, whether the driver was pressing the 

brakes, and whether the driver was wearing a seatbelt. Some 

jurisdictions, including that of the Pennsylvania State Police, 

access data from vehicle EDRs when investigating crashes. 

The purpose of electronic surveillance is both to facilitate 

detection and apprehension, and to promote self-monitoring of 

driving behavior. Cameras have succeeded in achieving substantial 

reductions in speeding, and red-light cameras have succeeded 

in reducing infractions, injuries, and fatalities.40 Nonetheless, 

visibility would have to be very high, or surveillance widespread, 
Responses to the Problem of Aggressive Driving 21

for enforcement alone to impact risk-inclined drivers. Antisocial 

drivers, especially, are likely to be difficult to influence with negative 

reinforcement because they tend to overestimate the benefits and 

underestimate the risks of their aggressive driving behaviors. 

You should consult your state codes to ensure that camera- and 

mail-based ticketing is permitted, and laws should be amended, 

as necessary, before enforcement programs’ initiation.41 If your 

jurisdiction decides to use electronic surveillance and enforcement, 

you should first gauge public support for using such technology. 

Publicizing the contemplated use of surveillance technology allows 

you to assess the public’s reaction before implementation. You 

might also consider issuing warnings for a set period before issuing 

citations. An evaluation program should be designed before police 

issue citations.42

Non-technology-based surveillance, such as when police monitor 

aggressive driving from aircraft, highway overpasses, and unmarked 

cars, is also used around the country to apprehend and deter 

aggressive driving. Some types work well with technology-based 

enforcement. 

2. Conducting high-visibility enforcement. High-visibility 

enforcement has the effect of calming the driving behavior 

of a greater number of motorists than those police actually 

stop. Using marked vehicles can increase visibility, as well 

as adding magnetic “aggressive driving patrol” signs to 

enforcement vehicles.

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation.

Example of high-visibility aggressive driving 

enforcement.
22 Aggressive Driving

§

See Response Guide No. 1, The 

Benefits and Consequences of 

Police Crackdowns, for further 

information on how to make 

hot-spot enforcement effective.

3. Conducting “centipede” enforcement. In centipede 

enforcement, six or more speed enforcement cars are placed 

approximately two miles apart to stop speeding drivers who 

think it is safe to speed up after passing a police officer who has 

pulled another driver over. Centipede enforcement is useful for 

apprehending aggressive drivers by distinguishing them from 

motorists who maintain lower speeds after they pass the initial 

visible enforcement officer.

4. Conducting enforcement crackdowns. Aggressive driving 

enforcement crackdowns, properly timed and executed, can be 

effective.§ For example, saturation police patrols on congested 

streets or around aggressive driving hot spots focus enforcement 

geographically. In addition to enforcing actual aggressive driving 

violations, enforcing precursors or actions that commonly 

trigger aggressive driving—such as blocking intersections 

during rush hour, failing to yield the right-of-way, and abruptly 

changing lanes—can also help reduce aggressive driving. 

5. Referring habitual aggressive drivers to state licensing 

agencies. Where police officers have ready access to motorists’ 

driving histories, they can determine whether the current 

aggressive driving violation reflects a pattern of similar driving. 

If so, the officer might then refer the driver to the state licensing 

agency for consideration of a license suspension or revocation.

6. Checking records of portable electronic device use. If 

officers suspect that aggressive driving occurred in conjunction 

with the driver’s use of a cell phone, personal digital assistant, 

or other distracting technologies, they should check those 

devices’ electronic records to verify their time of use and, 

perhaps, the nature of the communication. Enhanced penalties 

may apply.
Responses to the Problem of Aggressive Driving 23

Enhancing Legislation and Regulation

Efforts to address aggressive driving should include a review of 

your jurisdiction’s current regulatory environment. This will help 

determine whether police agencies have legislative authority to 

address aggressive driving effectively. 

A robust aggressive-driving regulatory environment would include 

the following:

• A statutory definition of aggressive driving exists and does not 

require that intent to harm be proved, but rather is based on 

objective driving behaviors. Intent to harm is difficult to prove 

in court. 

• Criminal statutes and sentencing guidance provide for 

enhanced penalties for violence arising from road incidents.

• A range of judicial sanctions exist for aggressive driving, 

including fines, jail time, license suspensions and revocations, 

vehicle confiscation, booting or impounding, anger 

management treatment, probation, and enhanced penalties for 

repeat violators.

• Police are authorized to cite drivers on the basis of camera, laser, 

and other technological evidence.

• Police are authorized to use unmarked vehicles for traffic 

enforcement.

• Police are authorized to work in teams in which the officer 

issuing the citation is not the same officer who witnessed the 

incident.
24 Aggressive Driving

7. Defining and prohibiting aggressive driving in the state 

vehicle code. At a minimum, aggressive driving should be 

defined in the state traffic code and sanctions prescribed. 

States and localities vary widely in terms of whether they have 

aggressive driving laws in place and how they define aggressive 

driving. Arizona, Nevada, and Delaware developed aggressive 

driving prohibitions in the late 1990s, and other states have 

since followed suit. Arizona defines aggressive driving as the 

co-occurrence of speeding and two other traffic violations that 

create an immediate danger to another. The law includes a list 

of violations that meet the terms of the definition, including 

failing to obey a traffic signal, passing on the shoulder, unsafely 

changing lanes, tailgating, or failing to yield. Other parts of the 

state’s traffic code separately define each of these violations. 

8. Restricting window tinting. Window tinting increases driver 

anonymity, thus lowering inhibitions to aggressive driving. 

Restricting the level of front window tinting reduces driver 

anonymity. Some states regulate the percentage of light that 

window tinting can block. Rules vary widely by state. 

9. Requiring Intelligent Speed Adaptation systems in large 

vehicle fleets. Intelligent Speed Adaptation systems can be 

installed in vehicles to notify drivers and/or automatically slow 

vehicles when drivers exceed speed limits. While private vehicle 

owners may not choose to use such technology, these systems 

could help improve professional drivers’ driving habits when 

the entire fleet uses them. 

Removing or Modifying Environmental and 

Situational Triggers

Certain environmental changes are known to reduce aggressive 

driving. For example, more efficient use of existing road capacity 

can improve traffic flow, better aligning natural human behavior 

with desired driving behavior. Engineering efforts such as 

coordinated signals, high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, 

shoulders converted into merge lanes, and similar measures can 

improve traffic flow. Non-road efforts, such as telecommuting and 

flexible work schedules, can also increase road-use efficiency.43
Responses to the Problem of Aggressive Driving 25

§

See Problem-Solving Tools Guide No. 

8, Using CPTED in Problem-Solving, 

for further information.

Environmental and situational responses are varied, and can include 

strategies that address vehicles’ features, traffic signals’ operation, 

road features, signs, and other means for providing additional 

information to drivers and traffic-calming techniques. Many of 

the following environmental strategies reflect Crime Prevention 

Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles,§ or what 

traffic engineers call ergonomic strategies.

10. Timing traffic signals to reduce aggressive driving triggers. 

Traffic-signal timing can influence driver frustration and 

anger and can facilitate safe and nonfrustrating driving.44

Ensuring adequate green signal times to reduce driver waits 

and frustration, eliminating excessively long red signals, 

ensuring appropriate signal-change intervals, and coordinating 

or synchronizing traffic signals all permit traffic to flow more 

smoothly and irritate drivers less. 

11. Enhancing traffic-signal and street-sign visibility. Low 

traffic-signal visibility puts drivers in the position of having 

to make last-second driving decisions, which could increase 

driver errors and violations. Easy-to-see signal housings and 

signs that provide advance warning about approaching signals 

on roads with high speeds and/or short sight distances can 

enhance traffic-signal visibility. Sufficient signal brightness is 

also important to help drivers clear intersections quickly. Clear 

and highly visible street signs help drivers find their way and 

also reduce last-second driving decisions. 

12. Improving drivers’ commute information in congested 

areas. The more drivers know about what to expect on their 

commutes, the better prepared they are to handle delays 

calmly. Information can reduce driver frustration in situations 

where congestion and time urgency could combine to 

trigger aggression. There are many ways that transportation 

departments have enhanced drivers’ information about their 

driving environment on freeways. Such tactics include signs 

that inform drivers of traffic delays, their causes, alternate 

routes, and estimated arrival times to urban centers. Added 

information gives drivers a sense of control and the option to 

choose alternate routes. 
26 Aggressive Driving

13. Clarifying appropriate merging zones. Clarifying where 

drivers should merge can reduce all drivers’ frustration. This 

can be achieved by using signs and painted indications on the 

road, for example, an arrow with the words “Merge Here” 

painted nearby. Merging can be encouraged late or early, as 

long as all drivers have the same idea about the point at which 

they should start merging. From a traffic-flow perspective, 

appropriate merging involves cars’ using all lanes and merging 

at a fair speed rather than forming a single queue early and 

coming to a near stop. 

14. Providing speed and distance indicators in areas where 

speeding or tailgating is common. When drivers are 

reminded of the law and their own driving behavior, they often 

monitor themselves and self-enforce driving rules. Police widely 

use digital speed-limit signs that indicate the legal limit and the 

speed of the approaching driver to remind drivers to slow down 

in areas where speeding is common. Similarly, painted dots on 

the road can indicate appropriate driving distance for the road’s 

speed. Based on road speed limits and safe following distances, 

painted indicators can help drivers gauge their distance from 

the car ahead and remind them that safe following distances are 

important. Painted chevrons create the illusion of a narrowing 

roadway, thereby reducing driving speeds.45

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation.

Providing drivers with more information about their 

commutes can help them to handle delays calmly.
Responses to the Problem of Aggressive Driving 27

15. Using traffic-calming features in neighborhoods where 

speeding is common. Traffic calming describes a wide 

range of road and environmental design changes that either 

make it more difficult for a vehicle to speed or make drivers 

believe they should slow down for safety. Some commonly 

used physical features include flat-topped speed bumps that 

double as crosswalks, traffic circles, radar speed signs, and 

road markings. Visual cues include street trees and streetlights. 

Tested traffic-calming approaches create self-enforcing behavior 

in drivers.§

16. Maximizing the use of existing roads. In already congested 

areas, adding road capacity is not feasible, for either lack 

of funding or space. You can use existing road capacity more 

effectively, however. Measures such as coordinating trafficsignal timing, using HOV lanes and promoting nontraditional 

work hours and arrangements all reduce congestion without 

requiring added road capacity. 

§

See Problem-Specific Guide No. 3, 

Speeding in Residential Areas, 2nd 

Edition for further information.

Virginia Community Policing Institute.

The use of painted chevrons has been successful at reducing driving speeds.
28 Aggressive Driving

17. Modifying physical road features. Sometimes modifying 

existing road features can reduce triggers for aggressive driving. 

By converting shoulders to merge lanes, congestion at peak 

traffic times can be somewhat mitigated. Creating rightsized freeway entrance and exit ramps that allow for effective 

merging can also reduce congestion. Converting shoulders into 

well-designed bus and bike lanes encourages alternatives to 

vehicle use. Limiting road construction and repair work to offpeak hours also reduces congestion and removes an aggressive 

driving trigger.

Educating Drivers

In public health matters such as road safety, primary prevention is 

generally considered the most effective approach to reducing injury. 

Although a small percentage of drivers are responsible for most 

traffic incidents, a primary prevention approach gets the prevention 

message out to all drivers. 

Deterrence is heightened when society stigmatizes the behavior 

in question. Potentially aggressive drivers weigh the likelihood of 

negative consequences such as fines, increased insurance, vehicle 

damage, injury, and social stigma against the rewards of breaking 

traffic laws, namely enjoyment and efficient mobility. Antisocial 

drivers are partially immune to the deterrent effects of most 

negative consequences because they underestimate their personal 

risk, but both antisocial and competitive drivers are interested in 

maintaining their image, thus making them susceptible to social 

stigma’s influence. 

According to an advertising executive, “We need to raise the 

salience of the embarrassment that...their failure to contain their 

rage on the road will make them appear foolish and pathetic. The 

most powerful deterrent to road rage will be the damage it might 

do to [an aggressive driver’s] image.... If people who are prone to 

road rage are to maintain their cool, it will be because, by doing so, 

they can avoid social disapproval.”46
Responses to the Problem of Aggressive Driving 29

18. Stigmatizing aggressive driving through public information 

campaigns. The most promising education approach for 

educating antisocial drivers involves stigmatizing aggressive 

driving behaviors in much the same way advertising campaigns 

transformed social perceptions of drunken driving.47 Such a 

campaign targeting the young white male demographic from 

which most antisocial drivers are drawn is more likely to reduce 

aggressive driving than a general prevention campaign.§

19. Addressing aggressive driving in drivers’ education 

curricula. Mandatory aggressive driving components in driver’s 

education can instruct young people, who are more at risk for 

aggressive driving, in the triggers, dangers, and consequences of 

such behavior.48 Virginia includes information about avoiding 

aggressive driving behaviors in its mandatory drivers’ education 

curriculum. 

20. Providing primary education on avoiding aggressive drivers. 

The general public could likely benefit from education about 

how to avoid becoming the victim or aggressor in a driving 

violence or aggressive driving incident.49 Education-based 

responses include the following:

• a media and public outreach campaign to stigmatize 

aggressive driving behaviors;

• a media campaign promoting safe parking-lot etiquette;

• road signs with public education messages, for example, 

signs reminding slower traffic to keep right, clear street signs 

to help drivers find their way, and signs that inform drivers 

about their obligation to share the road with cyclists in areas 

where bicycling is common;

• officers’ providing educational materials to cited drivers; and 

• educational programs for new, young drivers, focused on 

the social aspects of driving and avoiding aggressive driving 

offending and victimization. 

§

See Response Guide No. 5, Crime 

Prevention Publicity Campaigns, for 

further information.
30 Aggressive Driving

21. Training professional drivers in aggressive driving 

prevention. Professional drivers, such as those who drive 

large trucks, taxis, and buses, should receive special training 

concerning general driving attitudes and avoiding aggressive 

behaviors as a condition of their employment.50 Company 

policies against aggressive driving behaviors, vehicle monitoring 

and regulating devices, and surveillance of drivers’ behavior can 

complement training. 

22. Encouraging employer monitoring of professional drivers’ 

driving. Commercial fleets that used “How’s my driving?” 

bumper stickers reduced crashes between 20 percent and 

53 percent.51 Some companies have hired trained safety 

consultants with law enforcement or fleet management 

experience to report to the company on their commercial 

drivers’ driving behavior. Such consultants can surveil drivers’ 

behavior patterns in a variety of situations and provide credible, 

professional feedback to employers.

Enhancing the Consequences of 

Aggressive Driving

23. Requiring anger management treatment for aggressive 

drivers. Anger management treatment may be beneficial to 

aggressive drivers, risky drivers, impaired drivers, and drivers 

convicted of violent offenses. Cognitive-behavioral therapy 

for anger management has proved effective in reducing 

anger.52 Court referral to anger management treatment has 

been demonstrated effective in reducing aggressive driving.53

Traffic court judges in some states can refer aggressive driving 

offenders to anger management treatment or traffic safety 

education, in addition to imposing fines and jail time. Both 

the Maryland and Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C. have 

anger management treatment options available to traffic court 

judges. The National Center for State Courts examined these 

programs, but an insufficient number of referrals took place to 

support a program outcome evaluation. 
Responses to the Problem of Aggressive Driving 31

Many jurisdictions already have post-conviction programs to 

address impaired drivers’ needs. These programs are often required 

as a condition of license reinstatement. One researcher concluded, 

“Currently, available evidence provides strong support that these 

programs can reduce subsequent recidivism and collisions and may 

provide additional health and social benefits as well.”54 Courtbased anger management programs require provider training and 

certification and eligibility guideline checklists for judges to use in 

making referrals.

Courts could also require that aggressive drivers with alcohol and/

or mental health issues seek treatment for those problems as part 

of their diversion or sentence.55 Judges must be trained and willing 

to make referrals, and police officers must be trained to write 

citations in a way that will indicate to judges that the defendant is a 

candidate for referral to anger management for aggressive driving. 

Courts may not have sufficient numbers of eligible offenders 

to keep treatment programs open if only aggressive driving 

offenders are eligible. Because reckless and aggressive driving are 

interrelated and involve some of the same behaviors, it may make 

most sense to have both be eligible offenses, although reckless 

drivers should not be automatically referred, as they may not have 

anger management problems.

Drivers identified by courts in other matters as having anger 

control issues such as intermittent explosive disorder, or other 

indicators that a person is highly vulnerable to acting aggressively, 

could be referred to state licensing agencies for license restrictions 

or additional education requirements. License restrictions are 

commonly used for physical and mental health issues that could 

impact driving safety. While treatment for convicted aggressive 

driving offenders has been successfully piloted, treatment for persons 

not yet charged with aggressive driving has not been evaluated. 
32 Aggressive Driving

24. Requiring vehicle-based monitoring systems to enforce 

driving restrictions. Judges can also impose certain driving 

restrictions on aggressive drivers. Vehicle-based monitoring 

systems can include ignition locks and intelligent speed 

adaptation systems that report supervised drivers’ speeding to 

the court.

Responses with Limited Effectiveness

25. Discouraging aggressive driving through general publicity 

campaigns. General publicity campaigns designed to alter 

drivers’ attitudes toward aggressive driving have failed to 

reduce collisions.56 Aggressive drivers tend to be those who 

underestimate their risk of apprehension and overestimate 

their driving skill. They respond to trivial triggers that activate 

reservoirs of latent anger. Such drivers are unlikely to be swayed 

by logic and reason. 
Appendix 33

Appendix: Summary of Responses to Aggressive Driving

The table below summarizes the responses to aggressive driving, the means by which they are intended 

to work, the conditions under which they should work best, and some factors you should consider 

before implementing a particular response. It is critical that you tailor responses to local circumstances, 

and that you can justify each response based on reliable analysis. In most cases, an effective strategy will 

involve implementing several different responses. Law enforcement responses alone are seldom effective 

in reducing or solving the problem.

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

Enforcing Traffic Laws

1 19 Deploying 

surveillance 

technologies

It increases the 

probability of 

detection

...the problem is welldefined, the response 

is based on analysis of 

incident and hot-spot 

data, environmental 

issues have already 

been addressed, and 

the public is notified 

and educated before 

enforcement occurs

Surveillance systems 

require staff to install 

and maintain them, 

officer and staff 

training in use of 

equipment and data 

interpretation, and 

coordination with 

your jurisdiction’s 

transportation 

department

2 21 Conducting highvisibility enforcementIt increases the 

probability of 

detection and deters 

aggressive driving

...it is done in 

aggressive driving 

hot spots and in 

conjunction with 

other awarenessraising techniques

It should take 

place intensively 

or frequently, both 

resource-intensive 

propositions

3 22 Conducting 

“centipede” 

enforcement

It increases the 

probability of 

detection

...drivers are 

generally aware of the 

enforcement effort, 

but cannot predict 

exactly when and 

where it will occur

It is staff-intensive; it 

works only as long as 

drivers continue to be 

surprised
34 Aggressive Driving

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

4 22 Conducting 

enforcement 

crackdowns

It increases the 

probability of 

detection and/or the 

consequences to the 

driver

...locations are 

selected based on 

analysis of crime and 

GIS data

It can be staffintensive and 

sometimes practical 

only on an overtime 

basis; experienced 

personnel can be 

more efficient in 

detecting aggressive 

driving

5 22 Referring habitual 

aggressive drivers 

to state licensing 

agencies

It deters aggressive 

drivers by restricting 

their driving 

privileges

...officers can readily 

access driving records

Providing access to 

new data systems 

can be complex, 

time-consuming, and 

costly; drivers may 

disregard licensing 

restrictions

6 22 Checking records of 

portable electronic 

device use

It increases the 

probability of linking 

crashes to aggressive 

driving behaviors

...enhanced penalties 

apply to driving 

offenses that occur 

while drivers are 

using portable 

electronic devices

Checking device 

records may be 

burdensome, so this 

response should be 

used when called for 

by the severity of the 

offense and/or when 

a link to distracting 

technology is clear

Enhancing Legislation and Regulation

7 24 Defining and 

prohibiting aggressive 

driving in the state 

vehicle code

It clarifies for drivers 

and police officers 

what constitutes 

aggressive driving 

and provides for 

appropriate penalties

...the statute is 

based on observable 

behaviors and not 

on proving driver 

intent, and police 

enforcement is robust

It may require new 

legislation
Appendix 35

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

8 24 Restricting window 

tinting

It removes driver 

anonymity and 

thereby deters 

aggressive driving

...the law restricts 

tinting of both front 

and side windows

After-market window 

tinting combines 

with factory 

tinting, so the law 

must address the 

percentage of light 

transmitted inside 

the vehicle after both 

types of tinting are 

applied

9 24 Requiring Intelligent 

Speed Adaptation 

systems in large 

vehicle fleets

It physically restricts 

vehicles from 

reaching excessively 

high speeds

...it is limited to large 

vehicle fleets where 

one organization 

owns the vehicles and 

employs the drivers 

Regulatory 

requirements impose 

a cost burden on 

private-sector 

businesses

Removing or Modifying Environmental and Situational Triggers

10 25 Timing traffic signals 

to reduce aggressive 

driving triggers

It reduces drivers’ 

frustration

...it is part of an 

overall effort to 

reduce environmental 

triggers of aggressive 

driving

Traffic engineers 

must carry it out

11 25 Enhancing trafficsignal and street-sign 

visibility 

It reduces drivers’ 

frustration

...it is part of a 

local transportation 

department’s capital 

improvement plan or 

annual survey process

It requires equipment 

purchase, installation, 

and maintenance 

funding

12 25 Improving 

drivers’ commute 

information in 

congested areas

It reduces drivers’ 

frustration

...it is focused on 

areas with congested 

commute routes 

It may require state 

transportation 

departments’ 

cooperation 

13 26 Clarifying 

appropriate merging 

zones

It clarifies driving 

expectations and 

thereby reduces 

drivers’ frustration

...drivers understand 

and comply with 

merging directives

It is relatively 

inexpensive to 

implement; it would 

benefit from media 

exposure for public 

education
36 Aggressive Driving

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

14 26 Providing speed and 

distance indicators in 

areas where speeding 

or tailgating is 

common

It reminds drivers to 

drive safely

...indicators are 

installed in areas 

where speeding 

and tailgating are 

common

It is relatively 

inexpensive; it works 

to raise drivers’ 

internal controls, so 

it likely will reduce 

aggressive driving 

behaviors in average 

drivers; it is less likely 

to affect committed 

aggressive drivers

15 27 Using trafficcalming features in 

neighborhoods where 

speeding is common

It makes it more 

difficult and risky to 

speed

...the features are 

placed in residential 

neighborhoods 

and areas where a 

cohesive physical and 

visual environment 

exists or can be 

created

It is in the purview 

of neighborhood 

planners and traffic 

engineers rather 

than police, and it 

is easier to integrate 

seamlessly when 

neighborhoods are 

initially designed.

16 27 Maximizing the use 

of existing roads

It reduces drivers’ 

frustration due to 

traffic congestion

...it is part of a 

comprehensive 

traffic-flow strategy 

Some of these 

strategies have large 

policy implications, 

such as promoting 

telecommuting 

and flexible work 

schedules; it 

may require the 

cooperation of 

government and 

corporate leaders

17 28 Modifying physical 

road features

It reduces drivers’ 

frustration

...road features are 

well-designed such 

that they reduce 

rather than increase 

Some physical 

features are very 

expensive to alter; it 

should be considered 

drivers’ frustration for both new and 

existing roads 
Appendix 37

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

Educating Drivers 

18 29 Stigmatizing 

aggressive driving 

through public 

information 

campaigns

It deters aggressive 

driving through 

informal social 

pressure

...a coordinated, 

long-term campaign 

can be funded and 

implemented, and 

messages are carefully 

aimed at specific 

driver groups and are 

compelling to target 

audiences

Media campaigns 

are expensive and 

require professional 

advertising or 

marketing services; 

a long-term effort is 

likely needed 

19 29 Addressing aggressive 

driving in drivers’ 

education curricula

It deters aggressive 

driving through early 

education

... it is undertaken 

during a routine 

update to drivers’ 

education curricula

It requires 

cooperation from 

state licensing 

agencies and public 

and private driving 

schools

20 29 Providing primary 

education on 

avoiding aggressive 

drivers

It reduces the 

likelihood of 

provoking angry 

drivers to drive 

aggressively

...it is part of a 

coordinated, longterm campaign

Primary education 

can be expensive 

and requires the 

participation 

of professional 

advertising and 

public health 

specialists

21 30 Training professional 

drivers in aggressive 

driving prevention

It deters aggressive 

driving through 

education

...a trainer 

knowledgeable in 

aggressive driving 

prevention conducts 

the training

It might be made 

mandatory or offered 

for free or at a 

discounted charge 

22 30 Encouraging 

employer monitoring 

of professional 

drivers’ driving

It deters aggressive 

driving by increasing 

the probability 

of detection and 

the resulting 

consequences

...employers are 

committed to 

enforcing companies’ 

driving rules, and 

fleet insurance rates 

are reduced by having 

such programs in 

place

It requires the 

cooperation of 

company executives 

and fleet managers
38 Aggressive Driving

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

Enhancing the Consequences of Aggressive Driving

23 30 Requiring anger 

management 

treatment for 

aggressive drivers 

It reduces drivers’ 

aggressive reactions 

to frustration

...judges and 

prosecutors support 

treatment options, 

effective treatment 

programs are 

available in the 

jurisdiction, and 

eligible defendants 

are selected

To reach a critical 

mass of defendants 

to justify a treatment 

contract, program 

designers may wish 

to develop referral 

criteria that consider 

other offenses, 

such as reckless and 

impaired driving, 

and some nondriving 

offenses in which 

anger is a significant 

contributing factor

24 32 Requiring vehiclebased monitoring 

systems to enforce 

driving restrictions

Systems lock 

ignitions and report 

drivers’ speeding to 

the courts

All parties involved 

agree to their use

They may be 

expensive to install

Responses with Limited Effectiveness

25 32 Discouraging 

aggressive driving 

through general 

publicity campaigns

Print, radio, Internet 

and television media 

can all be employed

Used in conjunction 

with responses 

targeted at those 

most likely to offend

Aggressive 

drivers tend to 

underestimate the 

risk of apprehension 

and overestimate 

their driving skills; 

they are also less 

likely to be swayed by 

logic and reason
Endnotes 39

Endnotes

1 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2004).

2 James and Nahl (2000).

3 James and Nahl (2000).

4 James and Nahl (2000).

5 Neighbors, Vietor, and Knee (2002). 

6 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2006).

7 Galovski, Malta, and Blanchard (2006). 

8 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2004). 

9 Galovski, Malta, and Blanchard (2006). 

10 James and Nahl (2000).

11 James and Nahl (2000). 

12Dollard et al. (1939), referenced in Millar (2007).

13 James and Nahl (2000).

14 Joint (1995); Smart and Mann (2002); Wells-Parker et al. (2002). 

15Rose (2000).

16Parliament of Victoria Drug and Crime Prevention Committee, 

Australia (2005). 

17Mizell (1997). 

18Galovski, Malta, and Blanchard (2006).

19Ross and Antonowicz (2004).

20Ross and Antonowicz (2004).

21Ross and Antonowicz (2004).

22Ross and Antonowicz (2004).

23Parliament of Victoria Drug and Crime Prevention Committee, 

Australia (2005). 

24Parliament of Victoria Drug and Crime Prevention Committee, 

Australia (2005). 

25Galovski, Malta, and Blanchard (2006). 
40 Aggressive Driving

26Ross and Antonowicz (2004).

27Congressional Quarterly (1997).

28Ross and Antonowicz (2004).

29 Shinar (1998).

30Galovski, Marla, and Blanchard (2006). 

31Parliament of Victoria Drug and Crime Prevention Committee, 

Australia (2005).

32Parliament of Victoria Drug and Crime Prevention Committee, 

Australia (2005). 

33Galovski, Marla, and Blanchard. (2006). 

34Asbridge, Smart, and Mann (2003). 

35 Strahilevitz (2006).

36 James and Nahl (2008). 

37 James and Nahl (2008). 

38Tannen (1998).

39 James and Nahl (2008).

40National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2006).

41Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (2005).

42National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running (2002).

43Asbridge, Smart, and Mann (2006). 

44 Shinar (1998).

45 Stetenfeld (2003).

46Crimmins and Callahan (2003).

47Crimmins and Callahan (2003).

48 Shinar (1998).

49National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2004). 

50National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2006). 

51 Strahilevitz (2006).

52Deffenbacher (2002); Beck and Fernandez (1998).
Endnotes 41

53Asbridge, Smart, and Mann (2006). 

54Galovski, Marla, and Blanchard (2006). 

55Flango, Cullen, and Keith (2003). 

56Parliament of Victoria Drug and Crime Prevention Committee, 

Australia (2005).

References 43

References

Asbridge, M., R. Smart, and R. Mann (2006). “Can We Prevent 

Road Rage?” Trauma, Violence and Abuse 7(2): 109-121.

——— (2003). “The ‘Homogamy’ of Road Rage: Understanding 

the Relationship Between Victimization and Offending 

Among Aggressive and Violent Motorists.” Violence and 

Victims, 12(5): 517-531.

Beck, R., and E. Fernandez (1998). “Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy 

in the Treatment of Anger: A Meta-Analysis.” Cognitive 

Therapy and Research 22(1): 63–74.

Congressional Quarterly (1997). “Aggressive Driving: Can Road 

Designers and Police Calm Motorists Down?” The CQ 

Researcher 7(28): 649-672.

Crimmins, J., and C. Callahan (2003). “Reducing Road Rage: 

The Role of Target Insight in Advertising for Social Change.” 

Journal of Advertising Research (December). 

Deffenbacher, J. (2002). “Principles of Empirically Supported 

Interventions Applied to Anger Management.” The Counseling 

Psychologist 30(2): 262–280.

Flango, V., D. Cullen, and A. Keith (2003). “The Status of CourtBased Aggressive Driving Programs in Virginia: A Report to 

the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles.” Williamsburg, 

Va.: National Center for State Courts.

Galovski, T., L. Malta, and E. Blanchard (2006). Road Rage: 

Assessment and Treatment of the Angry, Aggressive Driver.

Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. 

Gaventa, J. (2005). “Policing Road Risk: Enforcement Technologies 

and Road Safety: Occasional Research Reports.” London: 

Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transportation Safety.

James, L., and D. Nahl (2008). “The Psychology of Parking Rage: 

Threestep [sic] Program for Prevention.” www.DrDriving.org

——— (2000). Road Rage. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books.

Joint, M. (1997). “Road Rage.” Washington, D.C.: AAA 

Foundation for Traffic Safety.
44 Aggressive Driving

Millar, M. (2007). “The Influence of Public Self-Consciousness 

and Anger on Aggressive Driving.” Personality and Individual 

Differences 43:2117-2126.

Mizell, L. (1997). “Aggressive Driving.” Washington, D.C.: AAA 

Foundation for Traffic Safety.

National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running (2002). Stop On 

Red = Safe On Green: A Guide to Red Light Camera Programs. 

Washington, D.C. National Campaign to Stop Red Light 

Running.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2004). Aggressive 

Driving Enforcement: Strategies for Implementing Best Practices. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation.

——— (2006). Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety 

Countermeasure Guide for State Highway Safety Offices.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation.

Neighbors, C., N. Vietor, and C. R. Knee (2002). “A Motivational 

Model of Driving Anger and Aggression.” Personality and 

Social Psychology Bulletin 28:324-335.

Parliament of Victoria Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee 

(2005). “Inquiry Into Violence Associated With Motor 

Vehicle Use: Final Report.” Melbourne, Australia: State of 

Victoria Government Printer.

Rose, G. (2000). “The Criminal Histories of Serious Traffic 

Offenders, a Home Office Research Study.” London: Home 

Office.

Ross, R., and D. Antonowicz (2004). Antisocial Drivers: Prosocial 

Driver Training for Prevention and Rehabilitation. Springfield, 

Ill.: Charles C. Thomas.

Shinar, D. (1998). Aggressive Driving: The Contribution of the 

Drivers and the Situation. Transportation Research Part F: 

137-160. London: Home Office. 

Smart, R., and R. Mann (2002). “Deaths and Injuries from Road 

Rage: Cases in Canadian Newspapers.” Canadian Medical 

Association Journal 167(7): 761-762.
References 45

Stetenfeld, E. (2003). “Milwaukee Pavement Markings Show SpeedReduction Promise.” SmartNews: The Wisconsin ITS Alliance 

Newsletter 1(3) (Fall/Winter).

Strahilevitz, L. (2006). “‘How’s My Driving?’ for Everyone (and 

Everything?).” John M. Olin Law & Economics Working Paper 

No 290. Chicago: University of Chicago Law School.

Tannen, D. (1998). The Argument Culture: Moving From Debate to 

Dialog. N.Y.: Random House.

Wells-Parker, E., J. Ceminsky, V. Hallberg, R. Snow, G. Dunaway, 

S. Guiling, M. Williams, and B. Anderson (2000). “An 

Exploratory Study of the Relationship Between Road Rage and 

Crash Experience in a Representative Sample of US Drivers.” 

Accident Analysis and Prevention 34:271-7.

About the Author 47

About the Author

Colleen Laing is the principal consultant in Laing Communications, 

a professional writing consulting firm. She has worked extensively 

on human services and criminal justice policy issues and is well 

versed in many public policy areas. She previously worked as a 

research analyst and research and grants unit manager for the 

Seattle Police Department. Laing has a master’s degree in public 

administration from the University of Southern California’s Public 

Affairs Center in Washington, D.C., and a bachelor’s degree in 

political science from Santa Clara University.

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 49

Other Problem-Oriented Guides 

for Police

Problem-Specific Guides series:

1. Assaults in and Around Bars, 2nd Edition. Michael S. Scott 

and Kelly Dedel. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-00-2

2. Street Prostitution, 2nd Edition. Michael S. Scott and Kelly 

Dedel. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-01-0

3. Speeding in Residential Areas, 2nd Edition. Michael S. Scott 

with David K. Maddox. 2010. ISBN: 978-1-935676-02-7

4. Drug Dealing in Privately Owned Apartment Complexes.

Rana Sampson. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-03-7

5. False Burglar Alarms, 2nd Edition. Rana Sampson. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-04-5

6. Disorderly Youth in Public Places. Michael S. Scott. 2001. 

ISBN: 1-932582-05-3

7. Loud Car Stereos. Michael S. Scott. 2001. 

ISBN: 1-932582-06-1

8. Robbery at Automated Teller Machines. Michael S. Scott. 

2001. ISBN: 1-932582-07-X

9. Graffiti. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-08-8

10. Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities. Ronald V. 

Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-09-6

11. Shoplifting. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-10-X

12. Bullying in Schools. Rana Sampson. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-11-8

13. Panhandling. Michael S. Scott. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-12-6

14. Rave Parties. Michael S. Scott. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-13-4

15. Burglary of Retail Establishments. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-14-2

16. Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs, 2nd Edition. Michael 

S. Scott and Kelly Dedel. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-15-0

17. Acquaintance Rape of College Students. Rana Sampson. 

2002. ISBN: 1-932582-16-9
50 Aggressive Driving

18. Burglary of Single-Family Houses. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 

2002. ISBN: 1-932582-17-7

19. Misuse and Abuse of 911. Rana Sampson. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-18-5

20. Financial Crimes Against the Elderly. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 

2003. ISBN: 1-932582-22-3

21. Check and Card Fraud. Graeme R. Newman. 2003. 

ISBN: 1-932582-27-4

22. Stalking. The National Center for Victims of Crime. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-30-4

23. Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders. Anthony A. 

Braga. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-31-2

24. Prescription Fraud. Julie Wartell and Nancy G. La Vigne. 

2004. ISBN: 1-932582-33-9 

25. Identity Theft. Graeme R. Newman. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-35-3

26. Crimes Against Tourists. Ronald W. Glesnor and Kenneth J. 

Peak. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-36-3

27. Underage Drinking. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-39-8

28. Street Racing. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-42-8

29. Cruising. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004. ISBN: 

1-932582-43-6

30. Disorder at Budget Motels. Karin Schmerler. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-41-X

31. Drug Dealing in Open-Air Markets. Alex Harocopos and 

Mike Hough. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-45-2

32. Bomb Threats in Schools. Graeme R. Newman. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-46-0

33. Illicit Sexual Activity in Public Places. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 

2005. ISBN: 1-932582-47-9

34. Robbery of Taxi Drivers. Martha J. Smith. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-50-9

35. School Vandalism and Break-Ins. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-9325802-51-7

36. Drunk Driving. Michael S. Scott, Nina J. Emerson, Louis B. 

Antonacci, and Joel B. Plant. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-57-6
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 51

37. Juvenile Runaways. Kelly Dedel. 2006. 

ISBN: 1932582-56-8

38. The Exploitation of Trafficked Women. Graeme R. 

Newman. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-59-2

39. Student Party Riots. Tamara D. Madensen and John E. Eck. 

2006. ISBN: 1-932582-60-6

40. People with Mental Illness. Gary Cordner. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-63-0

41. Child Pornography on the Internet. Richard Wortley and 

Stephen Smallbone. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-65-7

42. Witness Intimidation. Kelly Dedel. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-67-3

43. Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites. Rachel 

Boba and Roberto Santos. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-00-2

44. Disorder at Day Laborer Sites. Rob Guerette. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-72-X

45. Domestic Violence. Rana Sampson. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-74-6

46. Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and 

Driveways. Todd Keister. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-76-2

47. Drive-By Shootings. Kelly Dedel. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-77-0

48. Bank Robbery. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-78-9

49. Robbery of Convenience Stores. Alicia Altizio and Diana 

York. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-79-7

50. Traffic Congestion Around Schools. Nancy G. La Vigne. 

2007. ISBN: 1-932582-82-7

51. Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities. Justin A. Heinonen and 

John E. Eck. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-83-5

52. Bicycle Theft. Shane D. Johnson, Aiden Sidebottom, and 

Adam Thorpe. 2008. ISBN: 1-932582-87-8

53. Abandoned Vehicles. Michael G. Maxfield. 2008. 

ISBN: 1-932582-88-6

54. Spectator Violence in Stadiums. Tamara D. Madensen and 

John E. Eck. 2008. ISBN: 1-932582-89-4

55. Child Abuse and Neglect in the Home. Kelly Dedel. 2010.

ISBN: 978-1-935676-00-3
52 Aggressive Driving

56. Homeless Encampments. Sharon Chamard. 2010.

ISBN: 978-1-935676-01-0

57. Stolen Goods Markets. Michael Sutton. 2010. 

ISBN: 978-1-935676-09-6

58. Theft of Scrap Metal. Brandon R. Kooi. 2010. 

ISBN: 978-1-935676-12-6

59. Street Robbery. Khadija M. Monk, Justin A. Heinonen, and 

John E. Eck. 2010. ISBN: 978-1-935676-13-3

60. Theft of Customers' Personal Property in Cafés and Bars.

Shane D. Johnson, Kate J. Bowers, Lorraine Gamman, Loreen 

Mamerow and Anna Warne. 2010. ISBN: 978-1-935676-15-7

61. Aggressive Driving. Colleen Laing. 2010. 

ISBN: 978-1-935676-18-8

Response Guides series:

1. The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns.

Michael S. Scott. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-24-X

2. Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime: Should You 

Go Down This Road? Ronald V. Clarke. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-41-X

3. Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety 

Problems. Michael S. Scott and Herman Goldstein. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-55-X

4. Video Surveillance of Public Places. Jerry Ratcliffe. 2006 

ISBN: 1-932582-58-4

5. Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns.

Emmanuel Barthe. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-66-5

6. Sting Operations. Graeme R. Newman with assistance of 

Kelly Socia. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-84-3

7. Asset Forfeiture. John L. Worall. 2008

ISBN: 1-932582-90-8 

8. Improving Street Lighting to Reduce Crime in Residential 

Areas. Ronald V. Clarke. 2008. ISBN: 1-932582-91-6

9. Dealing With Crime and Disorder in Urban Parks.

Jim Hilborn. 2009. ISBN: 1-932582-92-4

10. Assigning Police Officers to Schools. Barbara Raymond. 

2010. ISBN: 978-1-935676-14-0
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 53

Problem-Solving Tools series: 

1. Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guide 

for Police Problem-Solvers. John E. Eck. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-19-3

2. Researching a Problem. Ronald V. Clarke and Phyllis A. 

Schultz. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-48-7

3. Using Offender Interviews to Inform Police ProblemSolving. Scott H. Decker. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-49-5

4. Analyzing Repeat Victimization. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 

2005. ISBN: 1-932582-54-1

5. Partnering with Businesses to Address Public Safety 

Problems. Sharon Chamard. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-62-2

6. Understanding Risky Facilities. Ronald V. Clarke and John E. 

Eck. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-75-4

7. Implementing Responses to Problems. Rick Brown and 

Michael S. Scott. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-80-0

8. Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in 

Problem-Solving. Diane Zahm. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-81-9

9. Enhancing the Problem-Solving Capacity of Crime Analysis 

Units. Matthew B. White. 2008. ISBN: 1-932582-85-1

10. Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion.

Rob T Guerette. 2009. ISBN: 1-932582-93-2

Special Publications:

Crime Analysis for Problem Solvers in 60 Small Steps,

Ronald V. Clarke and John Eck, 2005. ISBN:1-932582-52-5

Policing Terrorism: An Executive's Guide. 

Graeme R. Newman and Ronald V. Clarke. 2008.

Effective Policing and Crime Prevention: A ProblemOriented Guide for Mayors, City Managers, and County 

Executives. Joel B. Plant and Michael S. Scott. 2009. 
54 Aggressive Driving

Upcoming Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides

Missing Persons

Stranger Rape

Theft of Vehicles for Export

Problem-Solving Tools

Understanding Repeat Offending

Special Publications

Intelligence Analysis and Problem-Solving

Problem-Oriented Policing Implementation Manual

For a complete and up-to-date listing of all available POP 

Guides, see the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing website 

at www.popcenter.org.

For more information about the Problem-Oriented Guides for 

Police series and other COPS Office publications, call 

the COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770, via e-mail 

at askCOPSRC@usdoj.gov, or visit COPS Online 

at www.cops.usdoj.gov. 
Got a Problem? We’ve got answers!

Log onto the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing web site at 

www.popcenter.org for a wealth of information to help you deal 

more effectively with crime and disorder in your community, 

including:

• Recommended readings in problem-oriented policing 

and situational crime prevention:

• A complete listing of other POP Guides

• A listing of forthcoming POP Guides.

Designed for police and those who work with them to address 

community problems, www.popcenter.org is a great resource for 

problem-oriented policing.

Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services (the COPS Office).

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing
For More Information:

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services

1100 Vermont Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20530

To obtain details on COPS Office programs, call the

COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770

Visit COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov

June 2010

e061014286

ISBN: 978-1-935676-18-8

Aggressive Driving provides an overview of the problem of aggressive 

driving, commonly referred to as road rage, and reviews factors that 

increase its risks. The guide also identifies a series of questions to help 

you analyze your local aggressive driving problem. Finally, it reviews 

responses to the problem and what is known about these from evaluative 

research and police practice.