Dual-process models from the cognitive literature have proposed a taxonomy of cognitive failures in everyday activities, and this novel approach was applied to understanding driver behaviour. This framework was used to examine whether categories of cognitive failure would explain driving errors, driving lapses, and driving violations in a sample of undergraduates at a large urban university. Two types of cognitive failure were examined, one associated with missing affective information and the other associated with a failure to engage effortful processes to override an automatic response. Alexithymia was used as an indicator of missing affective information, and attention regulation, reactivity, and impulsivity were used as indicators of override failure. Relevant demographic variables included gender and hours typically driven. Override failures were significantly associated with driving behaviour in the correlational analyses. In the regression analyses, attention regulation predicted driving errors, and gender, attention regulation, and impulsivity predicted driving violations. The implications of this work include the potential application to driver training, to users of informatics devices (e.g., GPS, cellular phones, messaging systems), and for individuals diagnosed with attention and/or impulsivity problems.

Method Based on data from a general-population telephone survey conducted from July 2002 through June 2005, three groups of drivers were examined: 18–34 year-olds ( N = 1522), 35–54 year-olds ( N = 2726), and 55 years of age or older ( N = 1883). For each age group sample, logistic regression analyses examined self-reported aggressive driving perpetration and victimization in the last 12 months by measures of driving exposure, heavy drinking, cannabis use, and drinking-driving, while controlling for demographic factors. Results The prevalence of aggressive driving perpetration within the past year was highest for the youngest age group (51%), followed by the middle-aged group (37%), and then the oldest age group (18%). The same pattern of results was found for prevalence of aggressive driving victimization (54%, 47%, and 31%, respectively). Controlling for demographic factors, the predictors of perpetration were generally consistent across the age groups. The logistic regression model for the youngest drivers revealed that those who reported stressful driving, heavy drinking, and cannabis use had significantly increased odds of reporting perpetration of aggressive driving. For middle-aged and older drivers, stressful driving, driving on busy roads, cannabis use, and driving after drinking were associated with perpetration. In addition, increased mileage contributed to perpetration in the oldest group. The findings for victimization by aggressive driving were similar. The logistic regression model for the youngest age group identified stressful driving, cannabis use, and higher annual mileage as being associated with victimization. For the oldest age group, these same variables were significant predictors of victimization, in addition to driving on busy roads. The logistic regression for the middle-aged group identified the same predictors as that of the oldest age group; however, interestingly driving after drinking was found to predict lower victimization among middle-aged drivers. Conclusions Although the prevalence of aggressive driving perpetration and victimization declined with age, the factors that contributed to aggressive driving remained generally stable across the lifespan. The results suggest that efforts to reduce aggressive driving among young drivers may prove to be effective for drivers from all age groups. Keywords Driver aggression Road rage Drink-driving Alcohol Cannabis Population survey 1 Introduction Younger drivers are disproportionately over-represented among drivers involved in motor vehicle collisions (MVCs), as well as among the resulting injuries and fatalities. For instance, in 2007, individuals aged 15–20 represented 6.4% of licensed drivers in the United States, but 13% of all driver deaths resulting from MVCs ( National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA], 2008 ). This over-representation of younger drivers among those involved in MVCs is a consistent finding across many nations including Canada, Australia, and many Western European countries ( Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2006; Statistics Canada, 2003 ). Younger motorists are also over-represented among drivers considered to be aggressive. Compared to more mature motorists, younger drivers report experiencing greater anger and reacting with more intense aggression in response to frustrating roadway events ( Lajunen & Parker, 2001; Smart, Mann, & Stoduto, 2003; Smart, Stoduto, Mann, & Adlaf, 2004 ). They are also less patient in response to such events, resorting to shouting, gesturing, or horn-honking sooner or more frequently than other drivers ( Hauber, 1980; Shinar, 1998; Smart et al., 2003 ). Extreme forms of road rage, such as chasing another vehicle or physical violence by one driver against another, are not the most common form of retaliation; however, driver anger is virtually always associated with at least a minor aggressive response such as muttering comments, shouting, and gesturing ( Neighbors, Vietor, & Knee, 2002 ). Analyses derived from an annual general population survey of adults in Ontario, Canada (cumulative N from 1996 to 2009 > 30,000; Mann, Smart, Stoduto, Adlaf, & Ialomiteanu, 2004; Smart et al., 2003 ) revealed that nearly half of respondents reported being shouted at, cursed at, or having rude gestures directed at them in the past year. Less than 8% of respondents reported having another driver threaten to hurt them or to damage their vehicle. Only a third of respondents admitted that they themselves had shouted at, cursed at, or made rude gestures at another driver, and only about 2% of drivers confessed to having threatened to hurt another driver or damage another driver’s vehicle. Similar results were found in a nationwide survey of members of the Canadian Automobile Association (CAA) in 2000, which revealed that 47% of motorists had been victims of aggressive driving. Obscene gestures, being cut off in traffic, and being tailgated were the most commonly reported aggressive driving behaviours (as cited in Herzog, 2005 ). Slightly higher estimates of self-reported driver aggression came from a survey of American customers of Progressive Insurance conducted in 2000. Results indicated that 46% of drivers admitted expressing their anger toward other motorists while behind the wheel ( Progressive, 2000 ). In studying aggressive behaviour on roads and highways, several related concepts typically emerge: driver anger, aggressive driving, and road rage. For the current study, driver anger is conceptualized as an emotional precursor to aggressive behaviour, which is often elicited by the seemingly offensive actions of other motorists. In terms of the behavioural response to driver anger, researchers have generally made a dichotomous distinction between more minor acts of aggression (e.g., gesturing, cursing) and incidents of extreme violence (e.g., physical fights, shooting a firearm). According to Ellison-Potter,...