A Self-Monitoring Project for Modifying Driving Speed

Table of Contents

Introduction and Statement of Purpose

This paper is a self-monitoring project using a self-witnessing approach to study my automobile driving habits, especially speed control. The purpose of the project is to focus on my accompanying internal behaviors -- affective, cognitive, psychomotor -- and how these behaviors are reflected in driving proficiency, safety, and responsibility. I will briefly cite some of the literature regarding driving safety, events that have innacted on driving practice, and theory of driving. I will then discuss how fact and theory fit with my own driving habits in baseline and intervention periods. I will also cite alternative explanations that might have effected the project.

History and Background

The 55 mph national speed limit was enacted during the Arab oil embargo of 1973 to conserve fuel and became effective in, all states by March 1974 (National Research Council, 1984). The number of fatalities from 1973 to 1974 decreased from 55,511 to 46,402, and Congress made the 55 mph maximum speed limit mandatory nationwide (National Research Gouncil, 1984). Since 1974 the national fatality rate has continued to fall, even though speeds driven have been increasing, indicating that other factors ma; explain for some of the decrease in fatalities (Newsweek, 1986). It is difficult to determine a single factor that caused the drop in fatality rates because of the complexity of accidents, limited availability of statistics nationwide, and disrupted traffic. patterns because of the embargo, however studies suggest that from 3,000 to 5,000 lives were saved by the 55 mph speed limit in 1974 (National Research Council, 1984). It is estimated that currently the 55 mph speed limit saves 2,000 to 4,000 per year (National Research Council, 1984). Other explanations for the decrease in traffic fatalities are seat-belt and child-restraint laws, campaigns against drunken driving, improved auto design and roads (Newsweek. 1986).

There are some other benefits from the 55 mph speed limit including: reduced Petroleum consumption (about 167,000 barrels a day); reduced cost to taxpayers from government programs (Medicare, Medicaid, Disability Insurance) (National Research Council, 1984). The cost factor associated with the 55 mph speed limit is the additional travel time caused by slower travel, which amount to about 1 billion hours nationally (National Research Council, 1984).

The chief objection to the 55 mph speed limit is that it sets the same standard for the best Interstate highways as for two-lane rural roads (National Research Council, 1984). The speed limit has, in fact, been raised to 65 for some rural Interstate highways as of 1987. There was much controversy before this change was made. Most people express dissatisfaction with the slower speeds and increased travel caused by the mph speed limit, and at the same time most people (76%) support the law (National Research Council, 1984). the majority figure hide regional and demographic discrepancies in attitudes about the law. In California 47% of the drivers favor keeping the limit, and 74% admit to speeding occasionally (Newsweek, 1986). An increase to 65 mph on rural Intestates is projected to cost 500 lives and cause 500 serious injuries a year (Newsweek, 1986).

Besides the resistance to the 55 mph speed limit, there is also a trend towards uncivil, impolite driving. This was reflected in an article in Newsweek: Magazine (1986) by Martin Gottfried and echoed by the Honolulu Star Bulletin Reporter, Mr. Menninger, who visited our class on June 17 1987. Mr. Gottfried (Newsweek, 1986) quotes a New York psychiatrist as saving that it is the American way to take the law into their own hands, especially when something goes wrong, and that 'wrong' can be construed as anything that cramps personal style. Discussion both in the article and class centered around how many of us feel hostility, and react aggressively when another driver drives in a way we don't like.

In the United States the 'right to travel' has been recognized since the Magna Carta, was guaranteed by decisions of the United States Supreme Court, and cannot be taken away without due process under the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments (Economos, 1966). This right is protected against restrictions that might be placed by states, however, the use of the roads are subject to reasonable regulations of society. The law must then find the balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of society, and this is the heart of the traffic problem (Economos, 1966).

In 1926 a Uniform Vehicle Code was drafted, a comprehensive document that reflects state traffic laws, and covers control and regulation of the human as either driver or pedestrian, of the vehicle and of the highway, and provides a legal foundation for most aspects of highway safety (Economos, 1966). "To summarize, The Uniform Vehicle Code is the best available tool today to create the important features of the legal environment for travel on our highways and streets. However, no state has adopted the entire Code. Every state has adopted different parts of it, with the net result that the country as a whole has a hodgepodge of traffic laws that vary from state to state." (Economos, 1966) p.

Driver Attitudes and Habits

A theme of ambivalence seems to run through the whole subject of driving, whether discussing traffic laws, traffic enforcement, or individual drivers. The impetus to change the speed limit came from the oil embargo and need to conserve fuel, and then it was vicariously discovered that traffic fatalities decreased. After implementation nation-wide of the 55 mph speed limit, enforcement has not been forceful, fines for exceeding the speed limit are generally low, and law makers have succumbed to public opinion and pressure and raised the speed limit on rural Interstate highways. No nationwide campaign was held to educate the public to the benefits of the 55 mph speed limit, and the costs of higher speeds.

Versace (1966) asserts that there are two basic types of drivers: 1. Those who make decisions and adaptations to accomplish the objective of proceeding through the varying flow of traffic; and 2. Those who use the car and the traffic environment for expressing psychodynamic needs.

The first type of driver gage their driving behavior by the needs of the moment rather than by the traffic regulations that may not significantly apply (Versace, 1966). As long as no accident happens this type of driving is usually seen as skillful. Many accidents do occur, however, because drivers do not perceive and react quickly enough. Versace contends that most driving behavior is based on expectation, and events that have a low probability of occurring, and thus low expectation of them, are not allowed for nor believed when they do occur (Versace, 1966). There seems to be a cognitive dissonance between what the driver 'knows' can't be true, and what the true state of affairs really is.

Another aspect is that People believe that accidents happen to other people and not themselves, referring not only to driving accidents, but any kind of accident -- "I won't get pregnant." "I won't get caught." (Versace, 1966). So when we get into a car to drive we assume that nothing unexpected will happen. This goes along with attribution theory in the way people assign meaning to events, this type of driving behavior would be situational, occurring because of the driving situation (Watson, deBortali, Tregerthan, Frank, 1984).

The second type of driver may use the automobile in traffic to express his psychodynamic needs such as people who are accident prone and have predisposing traits, although this has not been validated by psychologists (Versace, 1966). This type of driving behavior might be considered dispositional and caused by a set of personality characteristics which were stable across different situations (Watson, deBortali- Tregerthank, Frank, 1984). Versace (1966) asserts that studies over the years have shown that drivers who have been involved in accidents or violations tend to be more aggressive, do not control their hostility, are self-centered and indifferent to others, are resentful, and seem to take more risks.

From my own self-monitoring of my driving I would assess myself to be a driver who adapts to traffic needs. The rule I learned when 1 was learning to drive in California was, "drive at a rate that is reasonable and prudent under existing traffic conditions". We were told explicitly that this did not mean that we could exceed the speed limit, however I decided that this was a logical driving guide and that it was, in fact, more logical than most traffic regulations and that if it were reasonable and prudent to drive faster than the posted speed, I would, however I would try not to get caught. As stated before my type of driver is usually considered to be skilled, and are basically good drivers (Versace, 1966), and on the whole I think I am skilled and basically a good driver. However, I have learned since starting this project that I consistently exceed the speed limit, oftentimes 1 do not signal a change of lane or when I am going to turn a corner. I have learned that I am a polite driver and usually pause to let someone into the flow of traffic, do not follow close behind a car, allow people to change lanes, and move to the middle lane when a faster driver wants to pass. I also have learned that I swear a lot while driving, my mind wanders a lot while driving, I drive better when I'm in a good mood than when I'm in a bad mood, and my mood affects my patience level while I am driving.

Self-Monitoring Project Results

The attached model is taken from the tape-I made while driving and gives a range of examples of affective, cognitive, and psychomotor responses I make while driving. There is no graph for speed because the flow of traffic on my trial route did not allow much for speeding. I monitored the speeding during these baseline and intervention periods myself while on freeways and longer rides.

The results from the self-monitoring are interesting. In the affective mode all the responses were at the proficiency level, and only one was a positive response. In the cognitive mode there is a spread over all three levels with a mix of positive and negative responses. And in the psychomotor mode the responses were at the highest and lowest levels.

One explanation for the spread across levels in the cognitive mode might be that I am using Dr. Jakobovits' definitions and not my own. I might have determined a different spread. In the route I was driving there was little chance for speeding or for courtesy to other drivers to be rated. I think the teaching done by Dr. Jakobovits in class influenced my driving, my awareness of how I drive, the statements I said to myself while driving. I know the cognitive statements I was making to myself, "keep the limit", "Focus on side of road" came from a lecture where he talked about doing this to give yourself a positive reminder about good driving. I think my driving was influenced both in the baseline and intervention periods by the teaching, and had he not done so much teaching in class my baseline, especially, would have looked very different -- I tend to be a lot more aggressive when driving than I was during this self-monitoring.

I was surprised that I reflect so few feelings in my tape, I consider myself to be a very feeling-centered person. What I do, however, is very different, and my responses are concentrated in the cognitive (and not the affective level) and parallel the psychomotor responses. The psychomotor responses that paralleled the affect were tension and pressure. Some explanation for the lack of feeling/affect responses might lie in the resistance to doing the recording. I did experience a lot of resistance and I avoided until the last moment, and 50 in the recording I might have unconsciously compensated by not disclosing my feelings.

Prior to this self-monitoring I considered myself to be a good driver. I thought I was a slow, cautious driver, polite to other drivers, and defensive. What I found is that l am a mediocre driver, usually driving over the speed limit, not being consistent about giving turn indications. I thought I drove at a rate that was reasonable and prudent under existing traffic conditions, in other words, I determined the rules and I usually did not get caught. I have had very few tickets in my life, I have been in two accidents but they were totally the other person's fault. Cognitively I have learned that I am not a good driver, and many times I am not even a safe driver. I do know that this self-monitoring has made a difference in my self-awareness, my self-knowledge, and my psychomotor responses while driving.

Afterthoughts

Since starting this project, and this class, my awareness of my own driving behavior has increased remarkably. I now monitor my speed when am not intending to do this, and am more likely to slow down than I was previously. Although I still get angry at rude drivers, or drivers who cut in front of me, I am less likely to make a rude gesture they can see in their rear-view mirror. I am surprised at how differently I am acting while driving, especially since I was sure the self-witnessing project would not have any effect on me. I think that the safety aspects and responsibility for other people's lives is the image that stays in my mind.

Changing Times, February 1985, pps. 73-77.

Economos, James P. (1966) . "The Legal Environment & Traffic Safety", pps. 15-24, in National Academy of Engineering, A Symposium, Traffic Safety, A National Problem . The Eno Foundation for Highway Traffic Control. Connecticut.

Forbes, T.W., Editor. (1972). Human Factors in Highway Traffic Safety Research. Wiley-Interscience, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.

National Research Council (1984). 55: A Decade of Experience. Transportation Research Board Special Report 204, Washington, D.C.

No Author. "Does Speed Kill", Newsweek, July 21, 1986, pps. 14-17.

No Author. "Rambos of the Road", Newsweek, September 8, 1986, p.8.

No Author. "Time to Raise 55-MPH Speed Limit?" U.S. News & World Report, May 19, 1986, p. 28.

No Author. "Americans Itch to Step on the Gas." U.S. News &World Report, May 19, 1987, p. 27.

Versace. John (April 28, 1966). "The Driver & Safety", pps. 25-46. National Academy of Engineering, A Symposium, Traffic Safety, A National Problem. The Eno Foundation for Highway Traffic Control, Connecticut.

Leon James' Home Page

My Home Page

Any questions or comments?