Quality Driving Circles:

Driving Circles Around Road Rage

Introduction: The Concept Behind Driving Circles

In the 1940's, during World War Two, there was a meat shortage in the United States. Much of the meat produced was needed to nourish the soldiers. Therefore, the United States Government experimented to see if they could convince people to eat the organs of the "food animals." So, Kurt Lewin presented himself in front of a group of housewives. He tried to persuade them to prepare and to taste the animal organs. The housewives met periodically to discuss the issue. After a series of meetings, group dynamics went into effect, and the housewives soon became open to the views of others. Their positive comments convinced themselves that eating animal organs was not bad at all.

Today, we face a greater problem called road rage. Since group dynamics worked for Lewin, it was decided that it might help to solve the problem of road rage. So, Dr. James created the concept of QDC (Quality Driving Circle). A QDC is a group of drivers that use group dynamics to modify their driving behavior. First of all, each driver must self witness their driving behavior. This can be done by jotting mental notes, writing on a piece of paper, speaking out loud, or by using a tape recorder. After self witnessing, the drivers would meet together in a group and discuss their driving behaviors. Negative driving behaviors would be unaccepted by the group, and the person who possesses them would be encouraged to change. These procedures would continue for numerous sessions. The magic under all of this is group dynamics. A group helps one to become open minded by exposing them to the views of many. People in a group tend to become open to views because ideas within a group become the norm among them. It is easier to change with the support of many than it is to change with the support of one.

Past Generations: Learning from the Past

Before I started my own Quality Driving Circle, I reviewed three QDCs from the last generation. These three QDCs were conducted by Lisa Among, Raeder Kinney, and Dina Takahashi. In reviewing these QDCs, I was hoping to learn how to effectively conduct a QDC, and to learn from their mistakes.

The first QDC I reviewed was Lisa Among's. In the first meeting, questions about driving were proposed to each of the members. Such questions included, "Do you speed?," "Have you been in a car crash?," and "Do you get upset with other drivers?" After the brief questioning, each student was instructed to self witness their driving for at least fifteen minutes. In the second meeting, each member focused one driving behavior. In the third and last meeting, each member reported their accomplishments. It was concluded as "somewhat successful."

Next, I reviewed Raeder Kinney's QDC. In the first meeting, the members were instructed to take along a tape recorder when they drive. In the second meeting, it was concluded that the recordings were biased. Therefore, another approach was considered. It was decided that the mothers of the members were going to be used to evaluate the driving behavior of the members. In the third meeting, the reports of the mothers were uncovered. So were negative driving behaviors. This QDC made it's members "more sensitive drivers."

Lastly, I reviewed Dina Takahashi's QDC. In the first session of Dina's QDC, the members were given a brief introduction of the concepts of traffic psychology. A tape recorder was hidden in each of the member's car. In the second session, it was assessed that all of the members had driving problems. Each member was encouraged to continue the self witnessing to help their driving.

Analysis and Evaluation: Success?

Lisa Among's QDC seemed to have a substantial impact. She said that "everyone was somewhat successful." The questions that she asked in the first session provided a good introduction. Her method of self witnessing seemed to be quite effective. I thought that the report could have been more complete, especially in showing their success.

Raeder Kinney's QDC also had a positive effect on it's members. I felt that her second method of self witnessing (a driving buddy) was very effective. By using this method, accurate and unbiased information about each of the members were exposed. The QDC made each member more sensitive to driving. Therefore this QDC could be considered a success.

I thought that Dina Takahashi's initial method for self witnessing was unique. Since the recorder was hidden, she was able to obtain unbiased driving behavior. But, I sort of had the feeling that Dina Takahashi did not really understand the concept of QDCs. She basically diagnosed each of her two members with a case of bad driving behavior. She did not utilized the power of group dynamics to alter their driving behaviors. Instead, it seemed like each member had to change without the encouragement of others. But, she encouraged her members to continue self witnessing. In this manner, her members will be able to observe negative aspects and hopefully change.

Well, as you can see, the results from the last generation were positive. In my opinion, I thought that the results were great considering that there were only three meetings with each QDC. I learned that using a hidden tape recorder as the soul method of self witnessing is not effective. I also learned that a driving buddy is a great way to assess one's driving behavior. But, you have to make sure that the drivers do not know that they are being evaluated. Hopefully I will be able to make improvements in consideration to their QDCs.

My Quality Driving Circle: On My Own

My quality driving circle consisted of five friends; three males and two females. Ages ranged from twenty-one to twenty two years old. Because some of the members of my QDC did not wish to have their real names used, I have fabricated identities. I will use the names Tom, Jerry, Yakko, Wakko and Dot. I tried to choose friends which I have already witnessed driving. In this manner, I would be able to distinguish who was telling the truth and who wasn't.

In the first session I held, I first confronted my members with questions about their driving habits. Many of the questions were borrowed from Lisa Among's QDC. All of my members admitted to speeding, and all of them have experienced anger while behind the wheel. Three out of my five friends have been in a car accident. After the brief questioning, I explained some basic facts about driving and road rage. I tried to explain to them how the affective behavior, cognitive behavior and the sensorimotor contribute significantly to the way we drive. In addition, I elaborated on how TV commercials can persuade our driving habits. I even told them about the driving education instructor who assaulted another driver. At the end of the session, I instructed each member to self witness their driving behavior for at least 30 minutes. I presented three ways in which they could record their progress; mental notes, writing on a piece of paper, or using a tape recorder. I thought about suggesting a driving buddy, but I thought that it might affect the way they drive (subject effects).

In the second session, each person gave their self witnessing report. Tom had a very bad report. He was always in a rush to his destination, even when time does not matter. He sped and weaved in and out of traffic. And when people got in his way, he became frustrated and stared them down. Jerry had a decent report. Since she has been in an accident, she is careful when driving. But, when someone scared her (almost involved her in another accident), she yelled out profanities. Yakko also had a decent report. When there was a slow person in the left lane, he tailgated that person until that person moved out of the lane. In this session, I disregarded Wakko. He tried to make himself look like the innocent driver with no problems. Since I have been a passenger in his car on a few occasions, I knew that he was not telling the truth. Dot had quite a bad report. Just one bad incident turned her commute to UH around. After being cut off, it seemed like Dot turned into an animal. She was uncourteous to others, and she "burned up" just having to sit in stop and go traffic. She said that she wished she had a tank that day.

After each report, we discussed the negative driving behavior(s) in detail. We talked about how each negative driving behavior was bad, and considered them unacceptable. We tried to determine what some of the underlying mechanisms of bad driving behavior are. I explained to them that the road is built for everyone, not just them. Besides that, I told them that many people feel threatened because their "private space" on the road is invaded. I'm glad that I had a group with me. If I was lecturing one of my members by myself, I don't feel that they would have been very accepting of the criticism. But, I did receive some resistance. Some of my members could not understand why "we" should change when many other people are involved in driving. I responded, "If some people resisted road rage, maybe others will follow." At the end of the session, I asked them to continue self witnessing for the next session.

In the third and final session, I wanted to assess their results. Just to note, one of my group members dropped out. We conducted the same type of session as the last; evaluating and discussing reports. Negative incidents seemed to be on the decline. All of my members seemed to be improving in recognizing and controlling negative driving behaviors. Besides that, I did not encounter as much as resistance as the last session. Coincidence? We will probably never know, because I did not hold a fourth session. I asked all of my members if they felt that these sessions were helping them to become better drivers. They told me that they became more aware of their driving behaviors. Due to the awareness, they do not automatically express negative behaviors in stressful road environments. They are able to see "clearly" while on the road. As for the actual sessions, some of my members implied that it helped influence them change. Being part of a group, one is encouraged to conform to the groups goal. In this case we were dealing with controlling our behavior on the road.

Overall, I thought that my QDC was quite successful considering that it only had three sessions. Changing behavior is not an easy and immediate process. If the sessions continued, I feel that the results would have been more evident. My QDC induced my members to become more sensitive to driving and driving conditions. They appear to be less vulnerable to reacting negatively on the road. In addition, they seem to be more caring of their lives, as well as the lives of others. It seems as if group dynamics helped them to acknowledge their negative driving behavior. Making bad driving behavior unacceptable among the group, each member was encouraged to modify their driving behavior.

Future Generations: Promoting QDCs

I feel that there could be a future for QDC's. First of all, QDCs have to be promoted. When I first enrolled in this class, I had no clue as to what "QDC" meant. People have to be informed about what they are, and about it's benefits. Secondly, QDCs have to be made available. If QDCs are not made available, they simply cannot exist. Lastly, people need to be motivated to join QDCs. I don't feel that many people will join a QDC unless there is an incentive.

First of all, QDCs have to be promoted. I believe that one can promote QDCs through the Internet and the media. I feel that QDCs can be promoted and conducted successfully through the Internet. Advertisements, or even a success story like this report could inform one about QDCs. And, you do not even have to meet physically to conduct a QDC. I believe that QDCs could successfully be conducted through e-mail and chat rooms. In addition to the Internet, QDCs can be promoted through TV. As we have seen the power of television in my first report, it could possibly be used to inform people of QDCs.

On July 17, 1997, a written testimony was presented by Dr. Leon James to the U.S. House Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Infrastructure. This testimony explained that a "social cultural approach" is necessary to contain road rage. Therefore, it was proposed that the government should establish QDC's in areas of commuter congestion. If QDCs are somehow utilized by the government, it's future will be assured.

One of the biggest problems is attracting people to participate in a QDC. Most of the people in my QDC did not seem as motivated as I anticipated them to be. The only reason they probably went through with it is because they wanted to help out a good friend. I believe that most people are in denial. They may think, "What's wrong with my driving...I haven't got into an accident...I haven't received a ticket yet." These types of attitudes would probably turn people away from QDCs. Therefore, incentives should be used to encourage people to take part in QDCs.

One example of an incentive would be to include QDCs for insurance discounts. The way this works is that insurance would be lowered for those who enroll in a QDC. In addition, possibly car manufacturers could offer incentives towards new cars. In this manner, those who join QDCs may be able to purchase new cars at lower prices. This way more people would be more inclined to joining a QDC. Another idea would be to include QDCs in education systems. For example, when one enrolls in driver's education, maybe they should be exposed to a QDC. In this manner, drivers who take driver's educations would start off with a good attitude towards driving. Looking at a larger scale, QDCs could be incorporated into curriculums at high schools. This would be most effective at an age in which the teenagers become eligible to drive.