STPP wanted to have a better understanding of where aggressive driving is occurring and why. The only database which allows comparisons among different states and metropolitan areas is the Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS), of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which records all traffic deaths. So we looked at how aggressive driving death rates vary to determine what factors in the general travel environment may influence the phenomenon. Do factors such as congestion, the extent of the highway system, the total amount of driving in an area, or availability of transportation options have any bearing on aggressive driving deaths?

While "road rage" is the popular term for crashes and deaths due to aggressive driving, it also implies those rare sensational incidents when drivers murder each other, often with guns. For this analysis, we use the term aggressive driving in reference to the parameters used by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and other organizations. NHTSA has used the following factors to identify crashes involving aggressive driving: speeding, tailgating, failing to yield, weaving in and out of traffic, passing on the right, making improper and unsafe lane changes, and running stop signs and red lights. STPP used a slightly narrower definition, excluding from our sample aggressive driving crashes in which drugs or alcohol were a factor, and included only very excessive speeding, above 80 mph. As a result, our estimate is that about 56 percent of all highway deaths involved aggressive driving in 1996.

Aggressive Driving Death Rates in
Metro Areas and States

STPP’s research shows that where you live influences the likelihood that you will be killed in an aggressive driving crash. Using the most recent data available (1996) from the Fatal Accident Reporting System of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration1, we found that the following were the top ten large metropolitan areas2 with the highest fatality rates due to aggressive driving factors: Riverside-San Bernardino, California, with a rate of more than 13 deaths per 100,000 people, Tampa,-St. Petersburg, Phoenix, Orlando, Miami, Las Vegas, Ft. Lauderdale, Dallas-Forth Worth, Kansas City, and San Antonio. (See Figure 1.) Most of these regions are marked by weak transit systems that struggle to serve the sprawling metropolitan area and development that discourages walking and biking forcing people to drive everywhere they need to go.

Because of the way most U.S. cities have grown in the last few decades, driving has become a part of almost every activity for many Americans. With housing subdivisions isolated from shops and schools, many people must get in the car even for short, simple errands. Working in an office park usually means driving is the only practical commute, and lunch may necessitate yet another trip in the car. Strip shopping centers mean drivers may get in and out of their cars many times on a single trip, each time searching for parking, and often relying on cooperation from other motorists.

The lower aggressive driving death rate in metro areas where more people take the bus or train is more than just a result of having fewer commuters on the road. For example, Boston, the major metro area with the lowest death rate from aggressive driving, people drive 12 percent less than in the average city, but aggressive driving fatalities are 66 percent below the average for all cities. The presence of transportation choices appears to be making roads safer for all users of the transportation system. Also, metropolitan areas such as Boston, where more people walk to work, are generally marked by an older grid street system, where streets are designed for lower, and safer, travel speeds.

	Boston This neighborhood in Boston gives everyone more travel choices--it provides more connections and routes for walkers, cyclists, and drivers.
	Riverside This Riverside, California neighborhood only provides a few routes. Both maps to same scale

All these factors – the ability to walk to destinations, lower automobile speeds, and transit use – point to community design. Compact communities with connecting neighborhood streets and local businesses are easier to serve with transit, more convenient for residents, and are safer for automobile users because they require lower travel speeds. Sprawling subdivisions and office parks that can only be reached by high-speed arterials are more dangerous for drivers and provoke more frustration among residents, resulting in more aggressive driving.

We also found strong statistical links between the use of other transportation modes and aggressive driving death rates at the state level. States with few aggressive driving deaths were also places where far more people take the train or bus. Residents in states with high transit use were 34 percent less likely to die in an aggressive driving crash than people who live in states where few people take the train or bus. States with fewer aggressive driving deaths had a significantly higher percentage of residents walking to work.

The states where fewer people travel on transit have a higher number of deaths due to aggressive driving. Again, to clarify our findings, we divided the states into three groups, those with high, medium, and low aggressive driving death rates. For example, the 17 states with the highest average aggressive driving death rate reflected just 24 passenger miles traveled by transit per person per year. The medium grouping of states averaged 44 miles traveled by transit, while the people living in the regions with the lowest aggressive driving death rate averaged a whopping 142 passenger miles traveled by transit per capita. (See Figure 5.)

Travel Choices Key To Lower Aggressive Driving Deaths

STPP’s findings indicate that better transit access and more travel choices are significant factors in lowering the risk of aggressive driving deaths. Much of the literature on aggressive driving focuses on the frustration experienced by drivers, anger management, and tougher law enforcement. Almost none recommend avoiding the situation—driving—altogether. In places with good transportation options, travelers who find driving most frustrating may be choosing to stay off the road, by taking the bus or train. Some commuters already recognize this; in a nationwide survey of transit users, 59 percent said they take the bus or train in order to avoid stress.5 In Virginia, 77 percent of people traveling on the state’s Virginia Railway Express say a primary reason for choosing the train is stress reduction.6 Commuters in places with more options may also be choosing to bicycle or walk, both physical activities that can help "work off" or prevent frustration.

Figure 5. States with Few Aggressive Driving Deaths Have Far Higher Transit Use.

However, millions of Americans have no viable alternative to getting in their cars. About 29 percent of American households live more than one mile from the nearest transit route or have no access to transit at all.7 Forty percent of rural communities in this country aren’t served at all by public transit. And, for millions more, service is too infrequent to be convenient.

Many incidents of road rage reported in newspapers reflect the anxiety the drivers felt about completing the seemingly endless errands of modern life. "These trips ‘set the odometer reeling,’" as author Jane Holtz Kay observes: "A bottle of milk, a tube of toothpaste, a Little League game, taking grandma to the hospital or junior for eye glasses spin the miles. The ministuff of life clogs the nation’s roads." About two-thirds of the nation’s trips are for errands and recreation.8

One recent case reported in the newspaper involved a woman racing to drop her child at school. She drove on the sidewalk to avoid a traffic tie-up. She told a police officer who tried to stop her that "I don’t have time for this" and ended up dragging the police officer down the sidewalk because she refused to stop.9 One solution to this woman’s problem would be for communities to provide safe places for children to walk to school so they don’t have to be driven everywhere. Only 10 percent of American children now walk to school.

Another possible source of frustration may be the disconnect between driving expectations and daily reality. Automobiles traditionally represent speed, convenience, and freedom, yet driving today in the United States actually requires a high level of cooperation and patience. Many automobile advertisements feature powerful cars and sport utility vehicles gliding along beautiful, deserted country roads, a condition few American motorists experience daily. Others create the impression that their vehicle will lift owners above the daily grind on the highway, although no cars on the market today are actually capable of doing so.

While cars are touted as the owners’ "home away from home," they can also start to feel like a trap. One reason sport utility vehicles may be so popular is that people feel they need a "tank" to protect them on the road. Drivers caught in traffic see no way out and in most cases they can’t even consider that next time, they’ll take the train.