This paper explores gender differences in drivers’ attitudes toward slow-speed travelers, namely, bicyclists and pedestrians. In exploring the environment–driving–behavior relationship, it differentiates between fast driving environments (i.e., highways and arterials) and slow driving environments (i.e., collectors and neighborhood roads) and posits a dominant culture of fast mobility that engenders aggressive driving behaviors. In this culture, time- and stress-related frustration is a precursor of aggressive driving. The study described in this paper uses data from a survey of drivers in Florida to examine women's and men's attitudes toward slowing down to share the carriageway with pedestrians and bicyclists. It finds differences by gender, with slightly more women likely to be frustrated than men, but male drivers are more prone to behave aggressively.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DownsA.Testimony on Peak-Hour Traffic Congestion.Presented before the United States Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Washington, D.C., March 19, 2002. epw.senate.gov/107th/Downs_031902.htm. Accessed May 15, 2007.
2.
PolzinS.2006. Overview of Transportation Planning. Paper presented to the Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Feb. 23, 2006.
3.
NeumanT. R., PfeferR., SlackK. L., HardyK. K., RaubR., LuckeR., and WarkR.NCHRP Report 500: Guidance for Implementation of the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan, Vol. 1. A Guide for Addressing Aggressive-Driving Collisions. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003. gulliver.trb.org/publications/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_500v1.pdf. Accessed May 15, 2007.
FergusonS. A., and BraitmanK. A.Women's Issues in Highway Safety: Summary of the Literature. In Conference Proceedings 35: Research on Women's Issues in Transportation, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006, pp. 39–50.
6.
KostyniukL. P., MolnarL. J., and EbyD. W.Are Women Taking More Risks While Driving? A Look at Michigan Drivers. In Women's Travel Issues: Proceedings from the Second National Conference. Publication FHWA-PL-97-024. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1996, pp. 503–515.
7.
PopeA.Ladders.Princeton Architectural Press, New York, 1996.
8.
ShinarD.Aggressive Driving: The Contribution of the Drivers and the Situation. Transportation Research, Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 1, 1998, pp. 137–160.
CampbellB. J., ZegeerC. V., HuangH. H., and CyneckiM. J.A Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in the United States and Abroad.Publication FHWA-RD-03-042. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, McLean, Va., 2004.
11.
TascaL.A Review of the Literature on Aggressive Driving Research. Presented at Aggressive Driving Issues Conference, Oct. 16 to Nov. 30, 2000. Ministry of Transportation of Ontario, Toronto Ontario, Canada. www.aggressive.drivers.com/main.html. Accessed May 15, 2007.
12.
KraheB.Predictors of Women's Aggressive Driving. Aggressive Behavior, Vol. 31, 2005, pp. 537–546.
13.
HennessyD. A., and WiesenthalD. L.Aggression, Violence, and Vengeance Among Male and Female Drivers. Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 56, 2002, pp. 65–75.
14.
NeighborsC., VietorN. A., and KneeC. R.A Motivational Model of Driver Anger and Aggression. Personal Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 28, 2002, pp. 324–335.
15.
ParkerD., and MansteadA. S. R.The Social Psychology of Driving Behaviour. In Applied Social Psychology (SeminG. R. and FiedlerK., eds.), Sage, London, 1996, pp. 198–224.
16.
LajunenT., ParkerD. and StradlingS. G.Dimensions of Driver Anger, Aggressive and Highway Code Violations and Their Mediation by Safety Orientation in UK Drivers. Transportation Research, Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1998, pp. 107–121.
17.
LajunenT., ParkerD., and SummalaH.Does Traffic Congestion Increase Driver Aggression?Transportation Research, Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1999, pp. 225–236.
18.
EwingR., and CerveroR.Travel and the Built Environment: A Synthesis. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1780, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 87–114.
19.
HandyS.Community Design and Travel Behavior: Exploring the Implications for Women. In Conference Proceedings 35: Research on Women's Issues, In Transportation, Vol. 1. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006, pp. 29–38.
20.
HandyS.Regional Versus Local Accessibility: Neo-Traditional Development and Its Implications for Non-Work Travel. Built Environment, Vol. 18, No. 4, 1992, pp. 253–267.
21.
KitamuraR., MokhtarianP. L., and LaidetL.A Micro-Analysis of Land Use and Travel in Five Neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area. Transportation, Vol. 24, 1997, pp. 125–158.
22.
GreenwaldM. J., and BoarnetM. G.Built Environment as Determinant of Walking Behavior: Analyzing Nonwork Pedestrian Travel in Portland, Oregon. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1780, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 33–42.
23.
HandyS.A Cycle of Dependence: Automobiles, Accessibility and the Evolution of the Transportation and Retail Hierarchies. The Berkeley Planning Journal, Vol. 9, 1993, pp. 21–43.
24.
SarkarS., MartineauA. M., EmaniM., KhatibM., and WallanceK.Spatial and Temporal Analyses of the Variations in Aggressive Driving and Road Rage Behaviors Observed and Reported on San Diego Freeways. California Institute of Transportation Safety, San Diego State University, San Diego, Calif., 1999.
25.
Wisconsin Department of Transportation. Impacts of Highway Facility Improvements on Travel and Regional Development. Wisconsin TransLinks 21, 1994. ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/ihfi.html. Accessed May 15, 2007.
26.
HeanueK.Transportation Research Circular 481: Highway Capacity and Induced Travel: Issues, Evidence and Implications.TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1998.
27.
SouthworthM., and Ben-JosephE.Streets and the Shaping of Towns and Cities.McGraw-Hill, New York, 1997.
28.
Functional Classification. In Flexibility in Highway Design, FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1998. www.fhwa.dot.gov/Environment/flex/ch03.htm. Accessed May 15, 2007.
29.
MatthewsM. L.A Field Study of the Effects of Drivers’ Adaptation to Automobile Velocity. Human Factors, Vol. 20, No. 6, 1978, pp. 109–116.
30.
CaseyS. M., and LundA. K.Changes in Speed and Speed Adaptation Following Increase in National Maximum Speed Limit. Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 23, 1992, pp. 135–146.
31.
Special Report 254: Managing Speed: Review of Current Practices for Setting and Enforcing Speed Limits.TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1998. trb.org/publications/sr/sr254.pdf. Accessed May 15, 2007.
CarnisL.Montana's Basic Rule: The End of a Myth. Annual Conference of the European Public Choice Society, Turku, Finland, April 20–23, 2006. congress.utu.fi/epcs2006/docs/G6_carnis.doc. Accessed May 15, 2007.
WangJ., DixonK. K., LiH., and HunterM. P.Operating-Speed Model for Low-Speed Urban Tangent Streets Based on In-Vehicle Global Positioning System Data. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1961, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006, pp. 24–33.
36.
PoeC. M., and MasonJ. M.Jr.Analyzing Influence of Geometric Design on Operating Speeds Along Low-Speed Urban Streets: Mixed-Model Approach. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1737, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000, pp. 18–25.
AudiracI., HigginsH., and StutzmanM.Sharing the Roadway with Bicyclists and Pedestrians. Florida Drivers’ Attitude Survey.Florida Planning and Development Laboratory, Florida State University, Tallahassee, 2006.
39.
CookT. D., and CampbellD. T.Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues.Houghton Mifflin, Boston, Mass., 1979.
40.
BiancoM., and LawsonC.Trip-Chaining, Childcare, and Personal Safety: Critical Issues in Women's Travel Behavior. Proc., Women's Travel Issues Second National Conference, Baltimore, Md., 1996. www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/womens/chap8.pdf. Accessed May 15, 2007.
41.
LiH., GuenslerR., and OgleJ.Comparing Women's and Men's Morning Commute Trip Chaining in Atlanta, Georgia, by Using Instrumented Vehicle Activity Data. In Conference Proceedings 35: Research on Women's Issues in Transportation, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006, pp. 14–20.
42.
RosenbloomS.Understanding Women's and Men's Travel Patterns: The Research Challenge. In Conference Proceedings 35: Research on Women's Issues in Transportation, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006, pp. 7–28.
43.
GossenR., and PurvisC. L.Activities, Time, and Travel: Changes in Women's Travel Time Expenditures, 1990–2000. In Conference Proceedings 35: Research on Women's Issues in Transportation, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006, pp. 21–29.
44.
GouliasK., and KitamuraR.Recursive Model System for Trip Generation and Trip Chaining. University of California Transportation Center, Berkeley, 1991. www.uctc.net/scripts/countdown.pl?040.pdf. Accessed May 15, 2007.
45.
StrathmanJ. G., DuekerK. J., and DavisJ. S.Congestion Management: Travel Behavior and the Use of Impact Fees, Vol. I. Effects of Household Structure and Selected Travel Characteristics on Trip Chaining.Transportation Northwest, Seattle, Wash., 1993.
46.
PolkM.Integration of Gender Equality into Transport Policy and Practice in Sweden. In Conference Proceedings 35: Research on Women's Issues in Transportation, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006, pp. 180–188.
47.
Context Sensitive Design Solutions in Designing Major Urban Thoroughfares for Walkable Communities. An ITE Proposed Recommended Practice.ITE, Washington, D.C., 2006.
