is an armed society a polite society? guns and road rage

Accident Analysis and Prevention 38 (2006) 687–695

Is an armed society a polite society? Guns and road rage

David Hemenway ∗, Mary Vriniotis ∗, Matthew Miller ∗Harvard Injury Control Research Center, Harvard School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Avenue, 3rd Fl., Boston, MA 02115, United States

Received 17 May 2005; received in revised form 1 November 2005; accepted 16 December 2005

Abstract

Background: While concerns about road rage have grown over the past decade, states have made it easier for motorists to carry firearms in theirvehicles. Are motorists with guns in the car more or less likely to engage in hostile and aggressive behavior?Methods: Data come from a 2004 national random digit dial survey of over 2400 licensed drivers. Respondents were asked whether, in the pastyear, they (1) made obscene or rude gestures at another motorist, (2) aggressively followed another vehicle too closely, and (3) were victims ofsuch hostile behaviors.Results: Seventeen percent admitted making obscene or rude gestures, and 9% had aggressively followed too closely. Forty-six percent reportedvictimization by each of these behaviors in the past year. Males, young adults, binge drinkers, those who do not believe most people can be trusted,those ever arrested for a non-traffic violation, and motorists who had been in a vehicle in which there was a gun were more likely to engage in suchfCd©

K

1

taauims(

dtDatM

i

0d

orms of road rage.onclusion: Similar to a survey of Arizona motorists, in our survey, riding with a firearm in the vehicle was a marker for aggressive and dangerousriver behavior.

2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

eywords: Firearms; Road rage; Aggressive driving

. Introduction

A car is like a second home, and motorists tend to respondo perceived threats in a territorial fashion. Unfortunately, whennother driver makes a mistake, it is often difficult for him topologize, to signal “excuse me” in a way that can be readilynderstood. By contrast, cars provide an environment in whichndividuals may feel safe to display hostility. A car gives the

otorist power, protection, easy escape, and anonymity. Noturprisingly, hostile behavior by motorists is relatively commonWhitlock, 1971; Turner et al., 1975; Fong et al., 2001).

The term “road rage” is relatively new, having first beenescribed in the U.S. in the late 1980s (Fong et al., 2001). Whilehe behavior is inconsistently defined (Smart and Mann, 2002;ula and Geller, 2003), making indecent gestures at other drivers

nd following aggressively are almost unanimously consideredypes of “road rage” (Joint, 1995; Wells-Parker et al., 2002;

iller et al., 2002; Smart et al., 2003). Until quite recently, stud-

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 617 432 4493; fax: +1 617 432 3699.

ies focusing on the characteristics of road rage perpetrators wererare (Smart and Mann, 2002); in the past few years they havebeen the subject of a number of a empirical inquiries (Dukes etal., 2001; Wells-Parker et al., 2002; Miller et al., 2002; Asbridgeet al., 2003). Our study uses a national survey to further examinerisk factors for road rage perpetration and victimization.

Over the past two decades, 23 states have made it easierfor residents to legally carry firearms on their person and intheir vehicles (Rosengart et al., 2005). It is estimated that overeight million Americans carry guns in their vehicles each month(Hemenway, 2004).

One claim about gun carrying is that “an armed society isa polite society”. While a Google search of that exact quote inOctober 2005 yielded over 33,000 hits, no one seems to haveexplained precisely what the phrase means, and empirical evi-dence concerning its validity is minuscule. We examine onespecific aspect of the potential association of armed individualsand polite individuals—whether motorists with guns in the cartend to be more or less polite, and secondarily, whether thesemotorists are more or less likely to be victimized by impolitedrivers. An earlier study by the senior authors found that, among

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (D. Hemenway), [email protected] (M. Vriniotis), [email protected] (M. Miller).

Arizona drivers, gun carrying motorists were more likely, ratherthan less likely, to act rudely and aggressively (Miller et al.,

001-4575/$ – see front matter © 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.oi:10.1016/j.aap.2005.12.014

688 D. Hemenway et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 38 (2006) 687–695

2002). The present study investigates whether or not that resultholds true at the national level.

2. Methods

In the spring of 2004, the Harvard Injury Control ResearchCenter commissioned Fact Finders, Inc., a social scienceresearch firm in Albany, NY, to conduct a national random-digit-dial telephone survey. Using techniques developed by Waksberg(1978), telephone numbers were randomly selected to includehouseholds with both listed and unlisted numbers. The randomdigit-dial technique is designed to ensure an equal, unbiasedprobability of inclusion in the sample of all households with asingle telephone line. Once a telephone number had been ran-domly selected for inclusion in the survey sample, as many as 10repeat phone calls were made to screen the selected household.Respondents were told that all their answers were completelyconfidential, and neither names nor addresses were recorded.

To ensure that the sample would be representative not onlyat the national but also the state level, the number of interviewsdesignated for each of the states was determined by that state’spopulation relative to the total population of the United Statesbased on 2000 Census figures. Instead of interviewing the adultwho answered the phone or who happened to be home at the timeof the call, the study was designed to select a household adultchosen at random. In practice, this meant alternately asking tosni

petaIiwm

asr1aRTo

ooo3t(w

p

the analyses (N = 2563). Four questions asked about behaviorswhich are generally considered to be components of road rage;responses to these questions are the dependent variables in theanalyses: In the last 12 months, (1) Has another motorist madeobscene or rude gestures at you?; (2) Have you made obsceneor rude gestures at another motorist?; (3) Has another motoristaggressively followed your vehicle too closely?; and (4) Haveyou aggressively followed another vehicle too closely?

One hundred and four (104) respondents did not answer allfour of these questions and were excluded from the analyses,leaving 2459 individuals in our final sample. Including thoserespondents who answered some of the road rage questions, butnot others, had no discernible effect on the results.

Independent variables are respondents’ (1) gender, (2)age (18–34; 35–59; 60 or older), (3) race (non-white orwhite), (4) education (high school or less; some college;college), (5) marital status (married/living with intimate orsingle/divorced/widowed), (6) household income (>$40,000;<$40,000), (7) urbanization (suburban, urban, rural), (8) cen-sus region (northeast, midwest, south, west), (9) political iden-tity (liberal, moderate, conservative), (10) driving frequency(>18,000 miles per year; 12,000–18,000; 6000–12,000; <6,000),(11) smoking (“In the last week, have you smoked a pack or moreof cigarettes?”), (12) binge drinking (“In the last month, haveyou had 5 or more alcoholic drinks on any occasion?”), (13) trou-ble with the law (“Have you ever been arrested for any reasonow(yt

sviWrt

bfmr

H

3

oabw(o3d

peak with a man or woman living in the household. If there waso person of the requested gender living in the household, thenitial respondent was interviewed.

Each interview started with an introduction that stated the pur-ose of the research: to understand “the nation’s opinions andxperiences on gun ownership and use.” Respondents were toldhat there would be additional questions about aggressive drivingnd other topics, that the sponsor of the research was the Harvardnjury Control Research Center, and that their participation wasmportant for ensuring a representative sample. Respondentsere guaranteed that their participation would remain anony-ous.Of the 4015 telephone numbers that were randomly selected

nd yielded contact with households that were eligible for theurvey, 31% refused to participate. This response rate is compa-able to that of other national surveys on firearms (Ludwig et al.,998; Azrael et al., 2000; Hemenway et al., 2000; Hemenway etl., 2001) and falls within the response rates for most Behavioralisk Factor Surveillance System firearm modules (CDC, 1998).he initial sample comprised 2770 adults 18 years of age andlder living in the United States.

The demographic composition of the sample is similar to thatf the adult population described by the 2000 U.S. Census: 51%f our sample is female (versus 51% in the 2000 Census), 37%f our households contain children under 18 years of age (versus6% in the Census), 79% of our sample is white (versus 75% inhe Census), and 19% of our adults are 65 years of age or olderversus 14% in the Census). Our survey contains more peopleho have a college degree 33% (versus 25% in the Census).One question asked, “Are you a licensed driver?” ninety-three

ercent (93%) answered in the affirmative, and were included in

ther than a traffic violation?”), (14) trust (“Generally speaking,ould you say that most people can or can not be trusted?”), and

15) gun-in-car (“In the last 12 months, how many days wereou in a motor vehicle in which there was a gun?). We categorizehe gun-in-car question into one or more days versus 0 days.

Since the gun-in-car variable is a focus of the study, for sen-itivity analysis we also tried two other categorizations of theariable. One divided the response to the gun-in-car questionnto four parts (>180 days; 10–180 days; 1–9 days; 0 days).

e also combined the gun-in-car question (yes/no) with theesponse to the question “Do any guns in your home belongo you personally” (yes/no) to create four categories.

Bivariate analysis is used initially to explore the relationshipetween dependent and independent variables, using the χ2 testor significant differences in discrete independent variables. Inultivariate analyses, logistic regression is used to determine

isk factors for road rage.The Institutional Review Board at Harvard School of Public

ealth approved this study in 2004.

. Results

Seventeen percent (17%) of drivers reported having madebscene gestures at other drivers in the past year; 9% reportedggressively following other drivers, and 3.5% reported bothehaviors (Table 1). In bivariate analysis, these behaviorsere significantly more common among males than females

e.g., 20% obscene gestures versus 14%), younger adults (35%bscene gestures for the 18–34 age group, versus 17% for the5–59 age group, versus 4% for the elderly) and those whorove more frequently (23% obscene gestures for those who

D. Hemenway et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 38 (2006) 687–695 689

Table 1Perpetrator characteristics: percent of respondents who engage in rude and hostile behavior directed at other motorists in the last 12 months

N % Who madeobscene gestures

Multivariate oddsratio (95% CI)

% Who aggressivelyfollowed


% Who didboth


Overall 2459 17 9 3.5

GenderMen 1235 20*** 1.2 (0.9,1.5) 11*** 1.4 (1.0,1.9)* 4.6** 1.4 (0.9, 2.4)Women 1224 14 – 7 2.4

Age18–34 years 529 35*** 8.3 (5.3, 12.9)*** 18*** 5.6 (3.3, 9.3)*** 10.8*** 27.3 (6.4, 115.9)***

35–59 years 1226 17*** 3.4 (2.3, 5.3)*** 9*** 2.3 (1.4, 3.8)** 2.3** 6.0 (1.4, 26.0)*

60 or older (referent) 668 4 – 3 – 0.3 –

RaceNon-white 417 21* – 8 – 4.1 –White 1996 16 0.9 (0.7, 1.2) 9 1.4 (0.9, 2.0) 3.5 1.3 (0.7, 2.4)

EducationHigh school or less 755 17 1.2 (0.8, 1.6) 8 1.1 (0.7, 1.7) 2.9 1.4 (0.7, 2.7)Some college 845 18 0.9 (0.7, 1.2) 10 1.1 (0.8, 1.5) 4.9* 1.7 (1.0, 3.0)∼College (referent) 848 17 – 10 – 2.8 –

Marital statusMarried/living with

intimate1650 17 – 10 – 3.5 –

Sin-gle/divorced/widowed

786 18 1.0 (0.8, 1.3) 8 0.9 (0.7, 1.3) 3.7 1.0 (0.6, 1.6)

Income>$40,000 1214 19 1.1 (0.8, 1.4) 11** 1.6 (1.1, 2.3)* 4.5* 1.6 (0.9, 2.9)∼<$40,000 (referent) 937 16 7 – 2.7 –Income missing 308 14 8 2.6

UrbanizationSuburban 1057 20*** 1.6 (1.2, 2.2)** 10 1.1 (0.7, 1.5) 4.5** 2.4 (1.3, 4.5)**

Urban 582 16 1.1 (0.8, 1.5) 8 0.9 (0.6, 1.4) 3.8∼ 2.0 (1.0, 4.1)*

Rural (referent) 785 14 – 9 – 2.2 –

RegionsNortheast 452 22** 1.9 (1.3, 2.7)** 9 1.4 (0.9, 2.2) 2.7 1.1 (0.5, 2.4)Midwest 566 17 1.5 (1.0, 2.1)* 7* 1.1 (0.7, 1.8) 3.2 1.6 (0.8, 3.4)South 890 16 1.2 (0.9, 1.7) 11 1.8 (1.2, 2.6)** 4.6 2.0 (1.1, 3.9)*

West (referent) 551 15 – 7* – 2.9 –

Political viewsLiberal (referent) 534 22 – 11 – 5.2 –Moderate 783 17* 0.7 (0.5, 1.0)∼ 8∼ 0.6 (0.4, 0.9)* 3.5 0.6 (0.3, 1.1)∼Conservative 910 14*** 0.5 (0.4, 0.7)*** 9 0.7 (0.5, 1.0)* 2.3** 0.4 (0.2, 0.7)**

Missing 232 18 9 4.7

Driving frequency (miles/year)18,000+ 656 23*** 1.8 (1.3, 2.6)** 14*** 1.6 (1.1, 2.5)* 6.3** 1.6 (0.9, 3.1)12–18,000 346 20*** 1.6 (1.1, 2.4)* 9 0.9 (0.5, 1.5) 3.8 1.0 (0.4, 2.1)6–12,000 738 17** 1.5 (1.1, 2.1)* 8 1.1 (0.7, 1.7) 2.0 0.7 (0.3, 1.5)<6000 (referent) 693 11 – 6 – 2.5 –

SmokerYes 487 25*** 1.2 (0.9, 1.5) 9 0.7 (0.5, 1.0)∼ 4.9∼ 0.8 (0.5, 1.4)No 1969 15 – 9 – 3.2 –

Alcohol consumptionHad 5+ drinks at once

in past month530 32*** 1.8 (1.4, 2.4)*** 15*** 1.5 (1.1, 2.1)* 8.5*** 2.3 (1.4, 3.8)**

Did not have 5+ drinksat once

1888 13 – 7 – 2.1 –

Trouble with law enforcementArrested other than for

traffic violation233 34*** 2.0 (1.4, 2.8)*** 13* 1.1 (0.7, 1.8) 6.9** 1.2 (0.6, 2.2)

Never been arrested 2212 15 – 9 3.2 –

Think most people can be trusted?No 484 26*** 1.6 (1.2, 2.1)** 13*** 1.6 (1.1, 2.2)* 5.8** 1.3 (0.8, 2.3)


Table 1 (Continued )

N % Who madeobscene gestures


% Who aggressivelyfollowed


% Who didboth


Yes (referent) 1808 15 – 8 – 3.0 –Missing 167 14 8 3.0

Gun in vehicleAt least once in past

year458 23*** 1.3 (1.1, 1.9)* 14*** 1.2 (0.9, 1.8) 6.3*** 1.7 (1.0, 2.9)∼

Never carry a gun 1957 16 – 8 – 2.8 –

If fewer than 50 respondents were missing, their results are not shown in the bivariate results but the respondents are included in the multivariate analyses.* p < 0.05.

** p < 0.01.*** p < 0.001.∼ p < 0.1.

drove more than 18,000 miles per year, compared to 11% forthose who drove less than 6000 miles). Both hostile behaviorswere more common among liberals (e.g., 22% obscene gesturesversus 14% for conservatives), binge drinkers (32% obscenegestures versus 13%), individuals who had been arrested forsomething other than a traffic violation (34% obscene gesturesversus 15%), those who do not think most people can be trusted(26% obscene gestures versus 15%), and individuals who rodein cars in which there were guns (23% obscene gestures versus16%).

Making obscene gestures at (but not aggressively follow-ing) other motorists was significantly more common for non-whites, suburbanites, Northeasterners, and smokers. Individualsin households with more than $40,000 income were more likelyto aggressively follow (but not make obscene gestures at) othermotorists. Education and marital status were not associated witheither behavior.

In the multivariate analysis (Table 1), making obscene ges-tures was more common among young adults compared to theelderly (odds ratio 8.3), suburbanites compared to rural dwellers(odds ratio 1.6), Northeasterners compared to Westerners (oddsratio 1.9), liberals compared to conservatives (odds ratio 2.0),motorists who drove more (18,000+ miles compared to <6000miles, odds ratio 1.8), binge drinkers (odds ratio 1.8), thosearrested for non-traffic violations (odds ratio 2.0), individualswho do not think most people can be trusted (odds ratio 1.6),ar

vbs(fqltt

dov

lege graduates, those who drove more miles, binge drinkers,those arrested for other than a traffic violation, and those carry-ing a gun in their vehicle were substantially more likely to reportthat they were the recipient of an obscene gesture.

Perpetration of and victimization by obscene gestures andaggressive following were highly associated. For example, ofthose who had been the recipient of an obscene gesture, 32%had made obscene gestures, whereas only 4% of those who hadnot been the recipient of an obscene gesture made obscene ges-tures at other motorists (Table 4). Similarly, of those who hadbeen followed aggressively, 16% had aggressively followed; ofthose who had not been aggressively followed, only 3% hadaggressively followed.

Our first sensitivity analysis showed that the two other catego-rizations for the gun-in-car question gave largely similar results.The first categorization divided the number of days the respon-dent was in a motor vehicle with a gun: >180 days with a gun inthe car versus 10–180 days versus 1–9 days versus 0 days. Therewas no significant difference in rates of having made obscenegestures or following aggressively in the last year among thethree gun carrying groups (Table 5); it thus seems appropriate tocombine them and compare them to those motorists who nevercarried a gun in their car (as in Tables 1 and 2).

In our second sensitivity analyses, we tried a four-part cate-gorization using responses to an additional gun question: “Doany guns in your home belong to you personally?” There wascagsngthi

4

mra

nd those who had ridden with a gun in the motor vehicle (oddsatio 1.3).

A higher percentage of motorists who rode with guns in theehicle made obscene gestures and followed aggressively, foroth males and females; for all three age-categories; for urban,uburban, and rural dwellers; and for all four census regionsTable 2). In multivariate analysis (not shown), after controllingor gender, age, urbanization, census region, and driving fre-uency, motorists who rode with guns in the vehicle were moreikely to make obscene gestures (odds ratio 1.4, 95% CI 1.1, 1.9)o follow aggressively (odds ratio 1.4, 95% CI 1.4, 1.0, 1.9) ando do both (odds ratio 1.9, 95% CI 1.1, 3.1).

Forty six percent (46%) of drivers reported having otherrivers make obscene gestures at them, 46% reported havingther drivers follow them aggressively, and 27% reported beingictims of both behaviors (Table 3). Males, younger adults, col-

lose similarity in the rates of obscene gestures and followingggressively among those who had ridden in a vehicle with aun, whether or not they were gun owners; there was also closeimilarity in the rates of these behaviors among those who hadot been in a motor vehicle with a gun, whether or not they wereun owners (Table 5). Again, it seems appropriate to comparehose who had ridden with a gun in the vehicle versus those whoad not (as in Tables 1 and 2), whether or not specific individualsn these groups were gun owners.

. Discussion

Risk factors for aggressive (driving) behavior include youth,ale gender, binge drinking, smoking, and having a criminal

ecord (Evans, 2004). In our study, we find that these factorsre also associated with making obscene gestures and aggres-


Table 2A comparison of those riding with a gun in the vehicle, or not, in the perpetration of rude and hostile driving behavior in the last 12 months

Gun in vehicle? N % Who made obscene gestures % Who aggressively followed % Who did both

GenderMale Yes 320 24* 15** 7.2*

No 885 19 10 3.6

Female Yes 138 21* 9 4.4No 1072 13 7 2.2

Age18–34 Yes 114 46** 29** 17.5**

No 410 31 15 8.5

35–59 Yes 247 19 11 3.6No 957 16 8 2.0

60+ Yes 91 7 3.2 0.2No 561 4 2.2 0.0

UrbanizationUrban Yes 80 22∼ 15* 10.0**

No 496 15 7 2.6

Suburban Yes 168 32** 15* 8.3**

No 865 18 9 3.7

Rural Yes 208 17 12∼ 3.4No 563 13 8 1.8

RegionNortheast Yes 60 30∼ 15 6.7*

No 386 20 9 2.1

Midwest Yes 87 32*** 9 5.8No 471 15 7 2.8

West Yes 114 18 8 5.3∼No 429 13 7 2.1

South Yes 197 20∼ 18** 7.1*

No 671 15 9 3.7

Driving frequency (miles/year)Less than 6000 Yes 64 14 13* 6.3*

No 619 11 5 1.9

6000–12,000 Yes 117 20 9 2.6No 607 16 7 2.0

12,000–18,000 Yes 85 25 9 5.9No 255 19 8 3.1

18,000 and over Yes 190 28* 18∼ 5.1No 453 20 13 8.4

* p < 0.05 Chi-square test.** p < 0.01 Chi-square test.

*** p < 0.001 Chi-square test.∼ p < 0.1 Chi-square test.

sively following other drivers. Consistent with our Arizona study(Miller et al., 2002), we find that these two hostile behaviors arealso associated with traveling in a motor vehicle that contains afirearm.

One would hope that those people with firearms in their vehi-cles would be among the most self-controlled and law-abidingmembers of society. Unfortunately, that does not appear to bethe case. In Arizona, and now at the national level, the evidenceindicates that those with guns in the vehicle are more likely toengage in “road rage”.

With respect to the gun-road rage connection, the most rel-evant information for other motorists, as well as for policy,probably comes from the bivariate rather than the multivari-ate results of Table 1. If someone is giving you the finger, itmay be useful to have some sense of whether or not they havea gun—not whether or not they have a gun controlling for theirincome, political views, or whether they think most people canbe trusted. Even after controlling for factors readily observableon the road – gender, age, urbanization, and region – along withdriving frequency (as in Table 2), motorists in cars with guns


Table 3Victim characteristics: percent of respondents victimized by rude and hostile behavior by other motorists in the last 12 months

N % Reporting otherdrivers made obscenegestures at them


% Reporting otherdrivers aggressivelyfollowed them


% Reporting bothbehaviors


Overall 2459 46 46 27

GenderMen 1235 51*** 1.0 (0.8, 1.2) 47 1.0 (0.8, 1.2) 30** 1.0 (0.8, 1.2)Women 1224 42 – 45 – 25 –

Age18–34 years 529 60*** 3.2 (2.5, 4.2)*** 53*** 1.5 (1.1, 1.9)** 37*** 2.5 (1.9, 3.4)***

35–59 years 1226 50*** 2.0 (1.6, 2.5)*** 48*** 1.3 (1.1, 1.6)** 30*** 1.9 (1.4, 2.4)***

60+ (referent) 668 27 – 37 – 15

RaceNon-white 417 47 – 47 – 26 –White 1996 46 0.9 (0.7, 1.2) 46 1.0 (0.8, 1.3) 28 1.1 (0.9, 1.4)

EducationHigh school or less 755 38*** 0.6 (0.5, 0.8)*** 45 0.8 (0.6, 1.0)∼ 23*** 0.6 (0.5, 0.8)***

Some college 845 46** 0.7 (0.6, 0.9)** 45∼ 0.8 (0.6, 0.9)* 27* 0.7 (0.5, 0.9)**

College (referent) 848 53 – 49 – 32 –

Marital statusMarried/living with

intimate1650 48** – 46 – 28 –

Single/divorced/widowed

786 42 0.9 (0.7, 1.1) 47 1.1 (1.0, 1.4) 27 1.1 (0.9, 1.3)

Income>$40,000 1214 53*** 1.2 (1.0, 1.5)∼ 48 1.1 (0.9, 1.3) 31*** 1.1 (0.9, 1.4)<$40,000 (referent) 937 39 – 45 – 24 –Income missing 308 38 43 21

UrbanizationSuburban 1057 48 1.0 (0.8, 1.3) 49 1.1 (0.9, 1.3) 29 (0.8, 1.3)Urban 582 43 0.9 (0.7, 1.1) 41* 0.8 (0.6, 1.0)* 25 0.9 (0.7, 1.1)Rural (referent) 785 46 – 48 – 28 –

RegionsNortheast 452 52 1.3 (1.0, 1.7)∼ 50∼ 1.2 (1.0, 1.6) 32∼ 1.3 (1.0, 1.7)∼Midwest 566 44 0.9 (0.7, 1.1) 43 0.9 (0.7, 1.2) 24 0.8 (0.6, 1.1)South 890 43∼ 0.8 (0.6, 1.0)* 48 1.1 (0.9, 1.4) 27 0.9 (0.7, 1.2)West (referent) 551 48 – 44 – 27 –

Political viewsLiberal (referent) 534 47 – 49 – 28 –Moderate 783 45 1.0 (0.8, 1.3) 46 0.9 (0.7, 1.1) 26 0.9 (0.7, 1.2)Conservative 910 46 1.0 (0.8, 1.3) 45 0.8 (0.7, 1.0) 27 1.0 (0.8, 1.3)Missing 232 47 48 31

Driving frequency (miles/year)18,000 or more 656 59*** 2.6 (2.0, 3.3)*** 51** 1.3 (1.0, 1.7)* 36*** 2.0 (1.5, 2.6)***

12–18,000 346 59*** 2.6 (1.9, 3.5)*** 51** 1.3 (1.0, 1.7)∼ 36*** 2.0 (1.5, 2.8)***

6–12,000 738 45*** 1.7 (1.3, 2.1)*** 45 1.1 (0.9, 1.4) 25** 1.3 (1.0, 1.7)*

<6000 (referent) 693 29 – 41 – 18 –

SmokerYes 487 52** 1.2 (1.0, 1.5) 57*** 1.7 (1.4, 2.1)*** 36*** 1.5 (1.2, 1.9)***

No 1969 45 – 44 – 26 –

Alcohol consumptionHad 5+ drinks at once

in past month530 55*** 1.0 (0.8, 1.3) 51* 1.0 (0.8, 1.2) 35*** 1.1 (0.9, 1.4)

Did not have 5+ drinksat once

1888 44 – 45 – 26 –

Trouble with law enforcementArrested other than for

traffic violation233 63*** 1.9 (1.4, 2.5)*** 48 0.9 (0.7, 1.2) 35** 1.2 (0.9, 1.6)

Never been arrested 2212 44 – 46 – 27 –


Table 3 (Continued )

N % Reporting otherdrivers made obscenegestures at them


% Reporting otherdrivers aggressivelyfollowed them


% Reporting bothbehaviors


Think most people can be trusted?No 484 52** 1.3 (1.0, 1.6)* 55*** 1.5 (1.2, 1.9)*** 34** 1.4 (1.1, 1.8)*

Yes (referent) 1808 45 – 44 – 26 –Missing 167 42 46 28

Gun in vehicleAt least once in past

year458 60*** 1.6 (1.3, 2.0)*** 53** 1.3 (1.0, 1.6)* 38*** 1.5 (1.2, 1.9)***

Never carry a gun 1957 43 – 45 – 25 –

Missing < 50 not shown in the bivariate results but included in the multivariate analyses.* p < 0.05.

** p < 0.01.*** p < 0.001.∼ p < 0.1.

Table 4Percent of those victimized by road rage in the last 12 months who have perpe-trated road rage in the last 12 months

N % Who madeobscene gesturesat other motorists

% Whoaggressivelyfollowed othermotorists

% Who both madeobscene gestures andaggressively followedother motorists

Has another motorist made obscene gestures at you in the last 12 months?Yes 1133 32*** 14*** 6.9***

No 1326 4 5 0.7

Has another motorist aggressively followed your vehicle in the last 12 months?Yes 1138 22*** 16*** 6.2***

No 1321 13 3 1.3

Did both occur within the last year?Yes 676 33*** 19*** 9.5***

No 1783 11 5 1.3

*** p < 0.001 Chi-square analysis used to test for significant differences.

Table 5Perpetration: guns and road rage (sensitivity analysis)

N % Who madeobscene gesturesat other motorists

% Whoaggressivelyfollowed othermotorists

% Who didboth

Number of days in past year rode in a motor vehicle with a gunOver 180 days 92 23 16 8.710–180 days 149 23 15 5.41–9 days 176 24 11 6.8

Gun in motor vehicleGun in vehicle;

own gun282 24 14 6.7

Gun in vehicle; donot own gun

176 23 12 5.7

No gun in motor vehicleNo gun in vehicle;

own gun388 15 8 2.9

No gun in vehicle;do not own gun

1569 16 8 2.6

are more likely to make obscene gestures at, and to aggressivelyfollow other drivers.

Our findings are generally consistent with other studies ofroad rage. For example, others have also found that youth, males(Asbridge et al., 2003) and those who drive drunk (Wells-Parkeret al., 2002) are more likely be road rage offenders and that roadrage is less common in rural areas (Smart et al., 2004; Asbridgeet al., 2003). Other studies have also found less difference bygender in road rage victimization compared to road rage perpe-tration (Asbridge et al., 2003).

Being victimized by “road rage” is common in the UnitedStates. Close to half (46%) of respondents report that, within thepast year, another driver had made obscene gestures at them, and46% also report that another driver had aggressively followedthem. Being so victimized was reported in similar percentagesby both whites and non-whites; urban, rural, and suburban resi-dents; residents of the four census regions; and people of liberal,moderate, and conservative political views.

Motorists with a firearm in the vehicle were disproportion-ately the subject of impolite behavior. They were significantlymore likely to be victims of both obscene gestures and aggres-sive following.

Being a victim of these types of aggressive behaviors is notunique to the United States. Studies find that similar percentagesof the motorists in Canada and the UK report such behaviordirected at them. A survey in the UK found that 48% of motoristshasat

ooeaNfit

ad been the victim of obscene gestures in the previous year,nd 62% had experienced aggressive following (Joint, 1995). Aurvey in Ontario found that 47% of respondents reported thatnother motorist had shouted, cursed or made rude gestures athem in the past year (Smart et al., 2003).

Not surprisingly, motorists who make obscene gestures atther drivers are more likely to have other motorists makebscene gestures at them. Studies of road rage in Arizona (Millert al., 2002) and Ontario (Asbridge et al., 2003) find a strongssociation between road rage victimization and perpetration.either their data, nor ours, permit us to know who made therst obscene gesture (instigation or retaliation?), or even whether

hese acts occurred in the same event. Nor do we know if other


aggressive actions (e.g. curse at other drivers, deliberately blockother drivers) were taken, nor what sort of potentially annoyingbehaviors (e.g. cutting someone off) occurred that may have setoff the aggressive response.

What is a good driver? In a qualitative study, respondentsdescribed the qualities of a good driver to include being cau-tious, sensible, patient, polite, and considerate of other drivers.Qualities of bad drivers include tailgating, not being consider-ate, taking risks, and being impatient (Lupton, 2002). One studyfound that the driver action most commonly felt to be aggressivewas following/tailgating (Joint, 1995). Perpetrators of the hostileacts described in this paper are clearly not “good drivers”.

Our findings have various limitations. Our survey under-sampled poor people (with no phones); the poor may behavedifferently than higher income respondents. The survey mayhave over-sampled households with more than one land tele-phone line, and under-sampled households that only possesscellular phones (which cannot be called by survey firms).

Telephone surveys are subject to both random and systematicerror (Frey, 1989). The statistical sampling error associated withour overall findings based on our sample of 2459 respondentsis ±1.8 percentage points at the 95% confidence interval. Forexample, if we interviewed every adult residing in the UnitedStates with a household telephone, 19 out of 20 times the find-ings from that survey would not deviate from our sample findingsby more than 1.8 percentage points (Lavrakas, 1993). Of course,vr

ona(1r

rciFakdawtw

tUban

hsv

and to follow other drivers aggressively. They are also morelikely to be the victims of these behaviors. Contrary to commonclaims, it does not appear that “an armed society is a politesociety”. We find, similar to the evidence from Arizona (Milleret al., 2002), that riding with a firearm in the vehicle appears tobe a marker for aggressive and dangerous driver behavior.

Acknowledgement

This research was supported in part by the Joyce Foundation.

References

Aday, L., 1996. Designing and Conducting Health Surveys. Jossey-Bass Pub-lishers, San Francisco, CA.

Asbridge, M., Smart, R.G., Mann, R.E., 2003. The homogamy of roadrage: understanding the relationship between victimization and offend-ing among aggressive and violent motorists. Violence Vict. 18, 517–531.

Azrael, D., Miller, M., Hemenway, D., 2000. Are firearms stored safely inhouseholds with children? It depends on whom you ask. Pediatrics; elec-tronic pages 106, e31 (available at: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/106/3/e31).

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 1998. Behavioral RiskFactor Surveillance System User’s Guide. Department of Health andHuman Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta,GA.

D

D

E

F

F

H

H

H

J

L

L

L

M

P

R

S

S

irtually no study has a 100% response rate or completely accu-ate reporting.

Our study had only two measures of road rage – makingbscene gestures and aggressively following – and these haveot been validated. In addition, respondents were only permittedyes or no response to the questions, rather than how often

e.g., never, seldom, sometimes, often, very often) (Parker et al.,998). With additional questions, and the possibility of broaderesponse categories, the results might be somewhat different.

Perhaps the key limitation of our study is that the responsesepresent self-report data, which are subject to potential inac-uracies attributable to social desirability responses, recall bias,ntentional distortions, or non-candid responses (Aday, 1996).inally, with more questions we could have obtained more detailbout the circumstances of the hostile behaviors. We do notnow, for example, whether motorists who reported both bingerinking and making obscene gestures made the obscene gesturefter they had drunk to excess. Even for our key gun questions,e do not know whether there was a gun in the vehicle at the

ime the road rage incident(s) occurred. Nonetheless, howevere defined “gun carrying,” the results were similar.Despite these limitations, our findings indicate that the same

ype of individuals who cause most of the road deaths in thenited States – young males, particularly those who smoke,inge drink, and have been arrested for non-traffic violations –re most likely to engage in rude and hostile behaviors on theation’s roads.

Road rage may be most dangerous when an enraged motoristas immediate access to a lethal weapon, such as a gun. Ourtudy finds that motorists who have ridden with firearms in theirehicles are more likely to make obscene gestures at other drivers

ukes, R.L., Clayton, S.L., Jenkins, L.T., Miller, T.L., Rodgers, S.E., 2001.Effects of aggressive driving and driver characteristics on road rage. Soc.Sci. J. 38, 323–331.

ula, C.S., Geller, E.S., 2003. Risky, aggressive, or emotional driving:addressing the need for consistent communication in research. J. SafetyRes. 34, 559–566.

vans, L., 2004. Traffic Safety. Science Serving Society, Bloomfield Hills,MI.

ong, G., Front, D., Stansfeld, S., 2001. Road rage: a psychiatric phe-nomenon? Soc. Psychiatry Psychiatr. Epidemiol. 36, 277–286.

rey, J.H., 1989. Survey Research by Telephone, second ed. Sage, NewburyPark, CA.

emenway, D., 2004. Private Guns Public Health. University of MichiganPress, Ann Arbor, MI.

emenway, D., Azrael, D., Miller, M., 2000. Gun use in the United States:results from two national surveys. Inj. Prev. 6, 263–267.

emenway, D., Azrael, D., Miller, M., 2001. U.S. national attitudes concern-ing gun carrying. Inj. Prev. 7, 282–285.

oint, M., 1995. Road Rage. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, Washington,DC.

avrakas, P.J., 1993. Telephone Survey Methods: Sampling, Selection, andSupervision. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

udwig, J., Cook, P.J., Smith, T.W., 1998. The gender gap in reporting house-hold gun ownership. Am. J. Public Health 88, 1715–1718.

upton, D., 2002. Road rage: drivers’ understandings and experiences. J.Sociol. 38, 275–290.

iller, M., Azrael, D., Hemenway, D., Solop, F.I., 2002. Road rage in Ari-zona: armed and dangerous? Accid. Anal. Prev. 34, 807–814.

arker, D., Lajunen, T., Stradling, S., 1998. Attitudinal predictors of inter-personally aggressive violations on the road. Transportation Res. Part F:Traffic Psychol. Behav. 1, 11–24.

osengart, M., Cummings, P., Nathens, A., Heagerty, P., Maier, R., Rivara,F., 2005. An evaluation of state firearm regulations and homicide andsuicide death rates. Inj. Prev. 11, 77–83.

mart, R.G., Mann, R.E., 2002. Is road rage a serious traffic problem? TrafficInj. Prev. 3, 183–189.

mart, R.G., Mann, R.E., Stoduto, G., 2003. The prevalence of road rage:estimates from Ontario. Can. J. Public Health 94, 247–250.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/106/3/e31

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/106/3/e31


Smart, R., Stoduto, G., Mann, R., Adlaf, E., 2004. Road rage experienceand behavior: vehicle, exposure and driver factors. Traffic Inj. Prev. 5,343–348.

Turner, C.W., Layton, J.F., Simons, L.S., 1975. Naturalistic studies of aggres-sive behavior: aggressive stimuli, victim visibility and horn-honking. J.Pers. Soc. Psychol. 31, 1098–1107.

Waksberg, J., 1978. Sampling methods for random digit dialing. J. Am. Stat.Assoc. 4, 40–41.

Whitlock, F.A., 1971. Death on the Road: A Study in Social Violence. Tavi-stock Publications, London.

Wells-Parker, E., Ceminsky, J., Hallberg, V., Snow, R.W., Dunaway, G., Guil-ing, S., Williams, M., Anderson, B., 2002. An exploratory study of therelationship between road rage and crash experience in a representativesample of US drivers. Accid. Anal. Prev. 34, 271–278.

is an armed society a polite society? guns and road rage

Documents