www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/leonpsy21/409a-g21-report2.htm

Dr. Leon James and Dr. Diane Nahl’s book, “Road Rage and Aggressive Driving” is an astonishing assessment of how people in today’s society approach and handle friction on the road. The married couple decided to intensively study this new age concept of “road rage” when Diane’s grandmother openly complained about Leon’s aggressive driving behaviors. Little did the grandmother know that she played an instrumental part in, ‘restoring civility and safety to our roads’ through Dr. James and Dr. Nahl’s, “Road Rage and Aggressive Driving.”

The book is divided into three parts: The conflict mentality, driving psychology, and the future of driving. Part one examines driving in the age of rage, aggressive driving, mental health, causes of highway hostility and the road rage spectrum. Part two examines emotional intelligence for drivers, three step driver self-improvement program, children and road rage, supportive driving, and lifelong driver education. Finally, part three covers the war against aggressive driving, speed limits, dream cars and driving realities.

Thankfully, Dr. Nahl and Dr. James were clever enough to actively involve the reader by adding checklists and exercises at the end of each chapter. These checklists and exercises promote the reader to become aware of their own driving attitude, behavior and knowledge. Dr. James and Dr. Nahl did not only place these checklists for active involvement while reading the book, they also did this so the reader could approach their driver self modification. This approach to driver self-modification plays an influential role and concept in driving psychology. There are three steps. Step one: acknowledging particular negative habit. Step two: witnessing the bad habit being performed. Step three: modifying this habit.

This book is full of information on road rage and aggressive driving behaviors. This dynamic duo provides a critical assessment on a study that is no way near its popularity that it deserves. “Road Rage and Aggressive Driving,” may very well be the most prominent and influential book out today that has the potential to begin a well-needed movement on driving psychology. This book intrigues, and at the same time, affects a variety of people. It knows no boundaries because this book can relate to anybody- no matter age, race, class, or gender. It is a simple book to read and it is one of those books that you don’t want to put down. Dr. James and Dr. Nahl present road rage and aggressive driving in a light that has never been seen to the majority of those who read it. This is why the book is so fascinating. “What you don’t know” will hurt you. This book should, and will be one day, critical knowledge to anyone driving on the road.

Summary of, “Road Rage and Aggressive Driving”

Chapter 12: Dream Cars and Driving Realities

This chapter covers a number of current advances to the vehicle and the driving experience as a whole. It touches on how music is an integral pat of the driving experience. Drivers are affected by music, either carefully selecting or avoiding certain music. Dashboard dining is making it easier for drivers to eat behind the wheel. The issue of cell phones is particularly important. Talking on the phone is risky because it can be distracting and lead to near-misses or crashes. We have come a long way since the first car was produced. People back then would be amazed with what he have now. I am sure I will be amazed at least 3 times in my lifetime…who knows maybe I’ll even be here for the first jet car!

‘Driving Lessons,’ by J. Peter Rothe is an intelligent and successful attempt at educating anyone and all about autocentric transport systems. Rothe goes far beyond the traditional approach of driving, focusing in-depth on traffic safety and its transport systems. With the help from other scholarly individuals this book is a comprehensive look on how we are bombarded by driving systems- personally, institutionally and technically.

Rothe divides his book into three intellectual sections: personal sub-systems, institutional sub-systems, and technical sub-systems. Section one examines neuro-behavioral variables and traffic safety, taxonomy of driving behavior as affective, cognitive and sensorimotor, innovations in injury control, how intimate social life contributes to risky driving, rural vs. urban driving, driving identities over the lifespan, risky vehicles and risky agents. All of these topics in section one fall into either a health sub-system, social sub-system, or cultural system. This section also emphasizes the possibilities for change within these systems.

In the second section of, “Driving Lessons,” Rothe goes in depth on such topics as understanding and interpreting the political basis of traffic safety, on-the-road economics, volunteer citizen activism and court monitoring. These institutional systems are seen on a level involving economics, legality, media and education. To be clearer, Rothe questions and challenges the efficiency of such hierarchal structures of government, courts, media and schools.

The third and final section inspects the normal accident, geographic information systems, case based reasoning, system design, and technological advances. Rothe alerts the reader the importance of geography and its affects on traffic safety. He also points out that technical innovations are changing driving behavior and raising debates, whether it be talking on a cell phone while driving or the implementing of photo radar and red light cameras.

“Driving Lessons” doesn’t simply study the mind, body, vehicle and roadway. Instead of focusing on the individual, Rothe focuses on the system that the individual is in. Rothe once stated that we’ve, “'avoided] exploring other vital perspectives like culture, economics, politics and social behavior.” If we continue to question traffic safety within transport systems like Rothe has, then it is highly possible that we will get some answers.

Summary of, “Driving Lessons: Exploring Systems that Make Traffic Safer”

Chapter 8: Risky Vehicles, Risky Agents”

This chapter explains auto centric transport systems, which are systems consisting of high reliance and domination on the auto for daily transport while neglecting alternative means of transportation. Alternative means are walking or bicycling. Another topic covered are risky vehicles. Risky vehicles are “hard” and “soft” means of mobility. An example of hard mobility would be the typical SUV. An example of soft mobility would be a bicyclist, even pedestrian. This chapter focuses on how we need to pay closes attention to the needs of softer means of mobility. Too quickly has out transport system becomes dominated by hard means of mobility. We need improvement right away.

Drivers.com and drdriving.org are two websites explaining different features concerning the broad spectrum of driving. The three main differences between the two sites are style, advertising, and probable audience.

The style of drivers.com is very informative yet somewhat dull. The main page looks uninteresting to me- it’s quite simple. The main page primarily consists of current articles pertaining to driving. The important topics are found on the left hand side. On the right side are advertisements. The important topics found on the left side lead you to more information on a particular category. This is the basic style of this website. The best style feature of drivers.com are the current articles that are readily available to view. The worst feature of the website is that it lacks in depth analysis of drivers and driving. People want more than general information.

The advertising of drivers.com is overwhelming. The website advertises for a variety of different organizations on the subject of driving. It even has a subtopic on how much it would cost to advertise on the website. The website informs those who may potentially advertise their service, “Every day we reach many thousands of key people in two industries: (1) driving, traffic safety, and trucking; and (2) technology and computing.” This simply shows that this website is ‘money-hungry.’ Putting such a large emphasis on advertisements takes away the true importance of the website; to provide education for drivers.

This website is designed for the general public. People who want ordinary, uncomplicated information will be drawn to drivers.com. I presume there is a large truck driver audience because it has plenty of information regarding truck drivers. The website even provides applications that are readily available to become a tuck driver. The audience also may tend to older, more professional people. I believe this to be true because once again, the advertisements endorse links to different companies, which are either selling a product or service, or hiring.

drdriving.com has a style that is more favored than drivers.com in my opinion. It may lack the ritzy style that most contemporary websites have nowadays but the website definitely does not lack vital information, which what the website is really intended to do anyway! drdriving.com is a more informative website with facts and statistics that are attention-grabbing. It focuses on articles and publications of their own work as well as others. Instead of providing general information on car loans and types of cars, like drivers.com, drriving.com examines driving from a psychological perspective (a new study called Driving Psychology). The website provides an extensive chart on one’s driving personality. This chart targets driver skills and behavior on three domains: affective, cognitive and behavioral.

This website lacks mega-advertisement compared to drivers.com. It does advertise amazon.com, but this is to purchase Dr. Leon James’ book, “Road Rage and Aggressive Driving.” The website doesn’t advertise because the true purpose of this website is to educate and aid those in need of improving their driving skill and behavior. There is no need for erroneous information on a website like drdriving.org

Consider Table 5 in the Lecture Notes, in the Section on Driving Psychology Theory and Charts at www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/leonpsy21/409a-g21-lecture-notes.htm#Charts Consult the article from which the Table was taken. Copy and paste the table into your file. Now delete the examples in each cell and replace them with your own examples that you make up. Discuss why driving is such a big problem in all societies and why no effective solutions have yet been found for them. Discuss the solutions offered by Dr. Leon James (DrDriving). What likelihood is there that his approach will be adopted? Explain.

Driving is a huge problem all over the world, particularly aggressive driving. Just look at these statistics due to aggressive driving:

42,000 deaths a year

Just to compare the death numbers to perhaps something Americans are more familiar with: compare 42,000 deaths due to traffic accidents to 3,000 deaths on 9/11 or 1,000 (and growing) deaths in Iraq. It puts things into perspective that way- doesn’t it? This is why driving is such a big problem in the United States. The numbers speak for themselves!

The sad thing is that no one seems to care because no one is doing anything about it. At the same time, I don’t want to undermine those who actually do care and are attempting to solve this problem. Thank you! However, it is safe to say that more needs to be done! No effective solutions have been found because there aren’t any available to the popular public. The solutions that are available aren’t publicized. This is probably the biggest issue. Secondly, there are insufficient funds to support effective solutions. How can we fix the problem if we cant financially implement such systems to educate supportive driving? Finally, no effective solutions have been found because the majority of people don’t even acknowledge that there is a problem! The vast majority are ignorant to how driving has many threatening affects. Ask a friend to give a guess on how many deaths happen a year due to driving. I am positive you friend will be farther rather than closer to the actual number of deaths reported. People need to be aware of how driving can cause a snowball affect leading to injuries, possibly even death!

Dr. Leon James has a fantastic solution. Basically, he strongly believes an effective solution would be lifelong drivers education. The way he would implement this solution is through the renewal of one’s license. In a perfect world, one would not be able to renew their drivers license unless he/she could prove that they are continually educating themselves in supportive driving. One can demonstrate self-improvement through Quality Driving Circles (QDC). Quality Driving Circles are informal groups whose function is to apply a long term or permanent socio-moral influence on the driving quality of its members. QDC’s would have a curriculum approved and designated by safety officials or agencies on a regional or national basis.

The likelihood of Dr. Leon James solution being adopted is very, very good. Why wouldn’t it be adopted? I can not find anything to criticize concerning his solution. The only problem, not criticism, is that I think it will take some time for it to be put into operation. Unfortunately, our awareness on driving psychology is still short. Regardless, it is well thought out solution and makes sense. It does not only pave the way for improvement on the individual but it also allows for change depending on safety officials/agencies and geographic location. I am 110% confident that one day people all over the word will be a QDC member!

1. The world toll from motor vehicle accidents in 1990 was estimated at about 1 million deaths and 40 million injuries. This represents two percent of all deaths and was the ninth leading cause of death.

2. More people died from traffic accidents than from any one of the following causes of death: sexually transmitted diseases; HIV; malaria; breast and prostate cancers; cirrhosis of the liver; violence; war; or self-inflicted injuries.

3. Road accidents are the leading cause of death for males aged 15-44.

4. In US between 1977-1995, the number of vehicles in household increased by a modest 12 percent, while the daily vehicles trips per household increased by 61 percent and the daily vehicle miles increased by 65 percent.

5. In the US motor vehicle accidents are the largest single trauma induced cause of paraplegia and quadriplegia, as well as being a major cause of epilepsy and head injury.

6. In 1992, 47.2 percent of all accidental deaths resulted from motor-vehicle crashes.

7. Pedestrians and cyclists accounted for 19.3 percent of all traffic fatalities in US.

8. US National Safety Council estimates that the risk of fatality roughly doubles for each 10 miles per hour of added speed over 50mph.

9. About one-half of the deaths on US roads are partly or totally the result of some driver losing emotion control.

10. Violent aggressive driving seems to be increasing- by 7 percent a year- while such causes of death as drunken driving are decreasing.

1. World Health Organization estimated that heart disease, depression and auto accidents will overtake infectious diseases as the leading cause of death and disability.

2. Death from traffic accidents will increase as poorer nations become more auto centric (dependent on automobiles) in their transport systems at the same time that the proportion of young adults in their population (those at most risk) grows larger.

3. World wide death toll form traffic accidents is expected to rise from 1 million to about 2.3 million.

Exercise A- Scenario Analysis:

This exercise forces one to think critically on how one a specific chain of events can lead to a road rage incident. The road rage incident comes from a letter written to Dr. Driving by a 16 year old boy. The boy attempted to go to a friend’s party however his plans changed as he discovered that he lost the directions on how to get there. He and his friend aimlessly ‘drove around’ past curfew and created a predicament for themselves by blocking an SUV so it could not pass. This escalated to an appearance of a gun and a high speed chase. The incident ended in confrontation with the police.

After reading the letter I was able to detect negative and aggressive driving behaviors by the boy and his friend. However, I could not detect all. This brings up an interesting point. It is salient that one can easily detect usual aggressive driving behaviors. However, it should be noted that aggressive driving behavior does not need to be colossal. Aggressive driving exists on simplistic domains. The point and major problem here is that we perform aggressive driving without even knowing it!

This exercise helped to realize that ignorant yet effortless driving behaviors can easily have the potential to fuel a road rage incident. The scenario analysis helped me to understand the importance of complete and full awareness of my driving behavior- not just my aggressive driving behavior. Because the exercise allowed me to see the mistakes made in such a predicament, it also allowed me to consider positive alternatives that could have made towards the outcome.

Exercise B- Acting As If:

This exercise is an extremely helpful one. It contains am inner power tool chart delineating opposing driving style vs. supportive driving style. Opposing driving style is saying negative remarks or even thinking of them. Examples of oppositional driving style are honking your horn at another person or vehicle, fighting over a parking spot, and speeding up to make a yellow light. Supportive driving is saying and/or thinking positive explanations after a friction has already occurred. Examples of supportive driving include relaxing in the face of frustration, elimination of time obsession, and basically realizing consequences weight out the benefits in most driving situations.

After critically analyzing the exercise at a whole. I realized this concept of ’acting as if’ does not only relate to driving style. It can relate on a personal level as well. For example, this exercise tells you that when you experience a bad driving behavior to say something positive out loud, even though you feel upset. This will create a new awareness. In turn, this awareness gives us a choice to either continue or reverse this feeling of frustration. I feel like one can relate this idea on so many social and personal levels. If one can have this same attitude when depressed about the loss of a loved one then one will be afforded the opportunity to choose how the will feel. This concept has a lot to do with emotional stability. If one can adopt this, ‘as if,’ concept towards driving hopefully it will lead to permanent basis on utilizing this idea towards every aspect of their life.

Exercise C- Assessing Myself as a Driver:

This exercise is an oxymoron. It is both simple and complex. The exercise straightforwardly asks one to make a list of your best traits and your worst traits as a driver. It even advises to use an additional sheet if necessary.

As I stated previously, this exercise is both simple and complex. It is simple because it doesn’t really require one to critically think. However what is complex about it is that making a list of positive and negative traits is harder than it seems. This exercise was time consuming for me. It took me so long because I could only think of a few things to jot down. It wasn’t until later that I realized the true purpose to why this exercise was taking me so long. I was in denial. I did not want to face it and admit to myself-especially writing it down on paper that I have a plethora of negative traits as a driver! This can not only relate to driving psychology it can relate to social psychology and abnormal psychology. Denial is a coping mechanism- we do it plenty on our daily lives without even knowing it. Perfect example: driving.

I did this exercise with a close friend of mine. Not wearing a seatbelt, fighting over parking spots, not using my turn signal, and not coming to a complete stop are only a few negative traits I have as a driver. Some positive traits I have as a driver are always waving to people to let them in, driving the speed limit, always being cautious of pedestrians and bicyclists. My positive and negative traits as a driver differed from my friends. Perhaps due to gender and upbringing. Males tend to feel that they have to drive more ‘macho’ and engage in risky behaviors. Upbringing relates to the variety of influences early embedded on one’s driving behavior. In this particular case, my friend’s father raced cars. So obviously, the ‘need for speed’ was and is an issue for my friend and his driving style.

The second part of the exercise asks to make a list of negative and positive traits according to the passenger. Now this one was interesting. What I discovered was that my passengers positive traits of me as a driver were pretty much similar to my list. However, the negative list differed to some extent. The negative traits were traits that I weren’t even aware of. For example, I play with the radio too much, I look around too much at stop lights, and I change lanes too fast. I do things in excessive amounts. I understand now that I need to simmer on things that are unconsciously threatening to me as well as my passengers. I am thankful that I see things in a new light because of my passengers. Their opinions are unbiased compared to mine.

Exercise D- Your Road Rage Tendency:

This exercise is a simple checklist answering ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to road rage questions. The checklist helps you to assess four critical elements that create habitual road rage: your anger theory, your driving philosophy, your habit of compulsive rushing or feeling competitive, and your over sensitivity to social pressure by motorists. After completing the task you give yourself one point for every ’yes’ answer. There are twenty questions. Typical scores range from 5 to 20, with an average of 12. I answered 7 ‘yes’’ which means I scored a 7.

My score indicated that I have moderate road rage habits which is not too surprising. I would have liked to score a 5 or less. Scoring 5 or less means that your road rage tendencies are manageable. I would like to believe that mine are controllable. I do have to admit however, that I am truly satisfied. I realize that if I were to have taken this exercise a few months ago, my score would have been sky high. I am proud to say that because of this course and knowledge attained through books, presentations, and discussions I have gained valuable insight on how to drive supportively and diminish any road rage tendency I practiced in the past. I now understand that if I can do it, so can anybody else. I realize now, that I am in a position to educate as well as motivate supportive driving.

(All stories taken from drdriving.org)

1. St. Bernard Parish Sheriff's deputies say a man who yelled at a passing motorist to slow down paid for it with his life Tuesday morning. The shooting happened at about 7:15 a.m. in Meraux, near New Orleans.. Investigators say the man was on his front porch when a car came speeding down the street. When the man yelled at the driver to slow down, police said the driver stopped, exited his vehicle and opened fire.

Emotionally challenged behavior: man yelling at a stranger, man criticizing stranger’s driving skill.

How behavior contributes to trouble: yelling only aggravates people, and when it is a stranger condemning actions of another while minding his/her own business. That person is most likely going to feel threatened.

Suggested smarter behavior: The man who lost his life should have let it go. He should have just laughed it off thinking that the driver was doomed for his own destruction, due to his aggressive driving behavior.

Driving psychology: man who unfortunately lost his life exposed his sensorimotor self (aggressive actions) by yelling at the driver speeding down his block.

Necessary vs. avoidable: This could have easily been avoidable. Especially since the man yelling at the driver wasn’t even in a vehicle.

Emotionally challenged behavior: Holden’s dangerous overtaking maneuver to avoid collision, Magna flashing its lights, truck honking his horn, Holden speeding out of the scene, Holden parked alongside of the road, Holden speeding again, Holden crashing into Magna, Holden fleeing the scene once again.

How behavior contributes to trouble: The two men in the Holden aggressively maneuvered to avoid a head on collision. The retired couple flashing their lights at the two men in the Holden. The truck honking its horn overwhelmed the two men’s emotions even more. The two men unconsciously threatened the couple by fleeing the scene and also by parking their car. Finally, the two men speeding and crashing into the couple caused a report and search to find them.

Suggested smarter behavior: The two men should not have avoided the accident by nearly causing another one. The retired couple should have relaxed and not flashed their lights. What help was that going to do? Same thing can relate to the truck honking his horn. The truck avoided a collision- there was no need to honk his horn. The men should have not fled the scene. It was bad judgment on their part, luckily no one got hurt. The men should not have retaliated. If they decide to flee the scene, don’t cause a bigger scene by crashing into a car purposely.

Driving Psychology: Each person in this situation exposed their affective self, as well as sensor motor. However, it is salient that the two men utilized their sensor motor more than the other two parties involved.

Necessary vs. avoidable: I feel that it was necessary for the two men to avoid a head on collision. However, what took place after the initial incident, was absolutely avoidable. The two men were immaturely looking for trouble.

Emotionally challenged behavior: Passing a car, pulling in front of the car and slowing down suddenly, the other car attempting to go around, and the obvious, pulling out a gun and firing it two times at the vehicle.

How behavior contributes to trouble: If one passes a car and slows down in front of that same car, that only shows intention. Harmful intention leads to trouble.

Suggested smarter behavior: The driver should have not driven around the vehicle that slowed down in front of him. He should have just let him drive slow for it should have been recognized that he had some bad intentions

Driving Psychology: The driver acted on his sensor motor self and aggressively acted by pulling out and firing a gun two times.

Necessary vs. avoidable: This situation could have been avoided. It appears that the driver acting aggressively had no real motive.

Emotionally challenged behavior: multiple aggressive driving acts (3 in one night), chasing a car off the road, slamming into the car.

How behavior contributes to trouble: This aggressive behavior contributed to trouble with the law. Luckily no one got hurt, but the drivers who assaulted are to appear in court. Possible jail time is being considered.

Suggested smarter behavior: Instead of chasing the car off the road, perhaps the SUV could have realized the consequences first. Such as dealing with court fees and jail time. If they realized the consequences they wouldn’t have acted aggressively- especially 3 times in one night.

Driving Psychology: The driver of the SUV definitely used his sensor motor self. The driver aggressively acted by ramming into the care as soon as the passengers of that car got out.

Necessary vs. avoidable: This incident was avoidable. Three times in one night? Give me a break! This just shows repeatable behavior. Three offenses in one night is drastic and needs hasty improvement.

Emotionally challenged behavior: car running a stop sign, Moon chasing the vehicle, Moon confronting the two boys who ran the stop sign, Moon beating one of the boys, other boy stabbing Moon in the abdomen with a knife.

How behavior contributes to trouble: The two boys running the stop sign caused Moon to engage in erratic behavior. So erratic, Moon chased the vehicle and began to beat one of the boys. Because Moon behaved so aggressively, the boys friend felt that he had to do something. He had to protect his friend. He then pulled a knife out and aggressively began to stab Moon in the abdomen.

Suggested smarter behavior: Moon should have thought to himself, ‘thank goodness I did not, or anyone else, get hurt from that vehicle running that stop sign. Maybe I should call the cops because there is a vigilante on the road.” Moon would have not chased the vehicle and beat one of the boys if he adopted this behavior. The boys should not have gotten out of their vehicle. They should have immediately notified the cops that a man was chasing them. Also, the boy should have not pulled out a knife and stabbed Moon. He should have not allowed it to escalate to physical violence.

Driving Psychology: Each person acted on all three aggressive driving domains; affective, cognitive, and sensor motor. Moon felt that he had to give the boy drivers a piece of his mind. He didn’t think people should be running stop signs. He then followed the vehicle and began to beat one of the boys. One of the boys acted on his cognitive and sensorimotor. The boy didn’t think Moon should be beating his friend up. He then pulled a knife out and stabbed the perpetrator.

Necessary vs. avoidable: This situation was avoidable. It began because Moon let another vehicle take over his feelings and rationality.

Emotionally challenged behavior: two vehicles chasing each other, weaving in and out of traffic on the highway.

How behavior contributes to trouble: The behavior contributes to trouble by affecting not only the two drivers that are in conflict with each other but also with the drivers 3-year-old son strapped in his car seat in the back. It also affects other vehicles driving in traffic. Finally, the friction led to trouble by homicide.

Suggested smarter behavior: Suggested behavior is not weaving in and out of traffic, chasing another car- especially with your three-year-old son in the backseat! Think about your child rather than being selfish and thinking about yourself and trying to be ’macho.’

Driving Psychology: The two drivers exposed their sensor motor self by acting aggressively and chasing one another. The obvious as well; aggressive actions can be seen by the driver being shot in front of his son.

Necessary vs. avoidable: This problem could have been avoidable if the driver with his son in the car realized the potential risks he was taking on account of his son. And perhaps, if the other driver knew that a 3-year-old boy was in the back seat, the entire situation could have been avoided.

Emotionally challenged behavior: the men in the Lincoln leering at the car full of girls, the girl not acknowledging his existence, the man hurling a drink cup, the girl flinging a soda can at the car, opening fire on the girl.

How behavior contributes to trouble: I think the only trouble that could have been detected was when the man threw his cup on the girls car. The girl throwing a soda can right back at them only made things worse. Because the girl retaliated the men felt threatened and opened fire, causing to kill the passenger and injury another.

Suggested smarter behavior: I think the girl passenger was smart in ignoring the man’s smirk. However, I guess it still irritated the man. The man should not have been so hurt- he should not have taken it personally. The girl in the backseat should have let it go- it didn’t even physically affect her. The girl driver could have also just drove off. Its better to be safe than sorry.

Driving Psychology: Senorimotor was exhibited by both parties. They both acted aggressively by throwing objects at each others car.

Necessary vs. avoidable: The girls could have avoided the situation by driving away. The men could have avoided the situation by not taking things so personally. They felt that they had to get the last say.

Emotionally challenged behavior: driver cursing at couple, gunfire towards the couple.

How behavior contributes to trouble: This behavior contributes to trouble because someone could easily get hurt. This kind of scary situation can happen to anybody as it is seen here.

Suggested smarter behavior: There is no need to curse at people, especially strangers with no valid justification. Driver should not take things out on other people and displace their negative actions on those who clearly don’t deserve it.

Driving Psychology: This is an example of a driver’s sensor motor self. He used profanity as well as firearms on an innocent couple.

Necessary vs. avoidable: This situation could have been avoided by not letting the driver’s emotions overwhelm him causing him to act aggressively and insanely.

Emotionally challenged behavior: driving at 12:30 a.m., flashing the high and low beams at another vehicle, driving head on in the oncoming traffic lane, steering so the vehicle will drive off the road, chasing a vehicle, firing a handgun at the passengers in the vehicle.

How behavior contributes to trouble: This behavior contributed to trouble because it lacked an understanding of communication. One party thought they were doing something reasonable while the other party took it to be threatening. One can never know what really goes on in the mind of another driver. This is a perfect example of this statement.

Suggested smarter behavior: Instead of trying to signal, maybe one should just let it go. That uncomfortable feeling will pass sooner than you think. And suppose someone flashes their lights on you, don’t automatically think it’s a threatening action. Not everybody drives aggressively on the road. Also, instead of chasing the car to get a license plate, let the cops handle it- that’s what they are there for.

Driving Psychology: Both parties exercised cognitive and sensor motor self. They both thought about their actions and they both acted aggressively upon them.

Necessary vs. avoidable: This situation was avoidable. The first party could have just dealt with bright lights for a few seconds. The other driver could have critically thought about the other driver’s actions. The driver could have avoided it by being more sensitive.

Emotionally challenged behavior: bicyclist driving against traffic, exchanging words with two men in a van and vice versa, attacking the bicyclist with his bike.

How behavior contributes to trouble: Bicyclists already have it hard due to that roads are ruled by vehicles. The bicyclists driving against traffic irritated the men in the van because it was now an extra burden to be aware of bicyclists now driving in the opposite direction.

Suggested smarter behavior: Ride the bicycle in the proper direction, don’t let a bicyclist driving against traffic affect you to the point that you get out and attack him. The two men should have just let him go. He was putting himself in a dangerous position already.

Driving Psychology: The men in the van, as well as the bicyclist, exposed their sensor motor domain by yelling at each other and physically attacking each other.

Necessary vs. avoidable: This could have been avoidable if the bicyclist would have been riding his bike in the traditional direction. Also, the men in the van should have avoided confrontation by not paying any attention to the bicyclist.

I loved this course. It was so interesting! This course is not demanding at all, if you don’t procrastinate. It requires the student to work at their own pace- with deadlines of course. The student mainly focuses on building his/her own website. If you only use the computer to check your email and nothing else, like myself, then you are going to experience difficulty. It will be a challenge but you’ll manage. I thought it was going to be impossible for me but I accomplished the task set forth. It’s a real sense of triumph to publish your work on your own website.

In this course you improve your information (computer) literacy, as well as driving behavior. The student studies road rage and aggressive driving in an intensive and analytical manner. I learned how to improve my driving skills and behavior on a diagnostic and personal level. I am very thankful to have taken this course. I learned a lot about my driving skills as well as others. The information I learned from this course will never be forgotten. Road rage is an epidemic and we need to educate everyone! The key to education is awareness among all ages, races and class that driving skill needs to be performed positively.