U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Final Report

Capital Beltway Update:

Beltway User Focus Groups

This document is available to the public from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

This publication is distributed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in the interest of information exchange. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Department of Transportation or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. If trade or manufacturers' names or products are mentioned, it is because they are considered essential to the object of the publication and should not be construed as an endorsement. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers.

Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No.	2. Government Accession No.	3. Recipient's Catalog No.
4. Title and Subtitle Capital Beltway Update: Beltway User Focus Groups		5. Report Date April 1998
		6. Performing Organization Code
7. Author(s) Preusser Research Group, Inc.		8. Performing Organization Report No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address Preusser Research Group, Inc. 7100 Main Street Trumbull, CT 06611		10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
		11. Contract or Grant No. DTNH22-97-D-05018
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590		13. Type of Report and Period Covered Interim Report
		14. Sponsoring Agency Code
15. Supplementary Notes Dr. Linda Cosgrove served as the NHTSA Contracting Officer's Technical Representative for the study.
16. Abstract The Capital Beltway is 64 miles of roadway surrounding Washington, D.C. The Capital Beltway Safety Team, led by officials from Maryland and Virginia, was formed to address safety issues on this urban interstate highway. This report documents the results of focus groups run during May, 1997 for the Safety Team. Of the eight groups conducted: three were composed of representative Beltway drivers of private passenger vehicles; two were composed of specifically selected "aggressive drivers;" and three were composed of commercial truck drivers. Procedures followed those used in 1994 for a similar study. The results indicated that roadway design and maintenance issues were of less concern to focus group participants in 1997 as compared with 1994 likely reflecting Beltway improvements made during the last three years. Unsafe driving actions, including aggressive driving, were of more concern. Focus group participants supported information, education, licensing and congestion reduction countermeasures. They also supported vigorous law enforcement of traffic laws even knowing that law enforcement presence would add to traffic congestion.
17. Key Words		18. Distribution Statement Crash Countermeasure Urban Focus Group Interstate Aggressive Drivers
19. Security Classif.(of this report) Unclassified	20. Security Classif.(of this page) Unclassified	21. No. of Pages 76	22. Price

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

Executive Summary

List of Tables
  1 Composition of Beltway Driver Groups
  2 How Participants Use the Beltway
  3 Perceived Causes of Beltway Crashes
  4 Perceived Causes of Beltway Crashes - Commercial Drivers
  5 Responses to Aggressiveness Screening Questions

List of Figures
  1 Questionnaire Responses - General vs. Aggressive Drivers

Background

This report covers the third in a series of focus groups conducted by Preusser Research Group (PRG) to assess Beltway drivers' perceptions of safety on the Capital Beltway. The first was conducted in August, 1994, to provide the Capital Beltway Safety Team with information to guide their priorities about recommendations contained in the Washington Area Highway Safety Initiative of November, 1993. The second wave, conducted in June, 1995, was more limited in scope. Its purpose was to obtain Beltway driver feedback to two public service announcements about unsafe driving behavior (specifically behaviors associated with "aggressive driving") and safety reminders being considered for variable message boards around the Beltway.

The primary purpose of the present project was to reassess Beltway drivers' perceptions of problems they experience on the Beltway and to document their reactions to recent improvements. These include engineering changes, law enforcement efforts, and public information and education programs. A second objective was to assess motorists awareness of the "Smooth Operator" program. "Smooth Operator" was a coordinated law enforcement effort conducted around the Washington, D.C. area to reduce unsafe driving incidences. A third objective was to explore the topic of aggressive driving, which had been receiving media coverage in recent months. The information will be used to assist the Capital Beltway Safety Team in formulating new plans.

Method

With a view toward determining how Beltway drivers' perceptions have changed since 1994, the basic structure of the 1994 focus groups was replicated in the current wave, with a few changes to enhance the sensitivity of the research to the topic of aggressive driving.

PRG conducted a series of eight focus group discussions with Beltway drivers. By design, three groups represented the general population of Beltway drivers, two groups represented "aggressive" drivers, and three groups represented drivers of commercial vehicles. Focus group research is an exploratory technique designed to provide an understanding of an issue and to raise potential questions for further research. Focus groups typically provide qualitative rather than quantitative results.

The three general population groups included a broadly representative sampling of Maryland and Virginia residents who drive on the Beltway. All participants were required to be licensed drivers who drive on the Capital Beltway at least one day a week. Quotas were established to ensure that each group would consist of drivers from both Maryland and Virginia, both genders, and all ages between 21 and 59 representative of drivers on the Beltway. Since Maryland's portion of the Beltway is approximately twice that of Virginia's, there were more Maryland participants. Qualifications and quotas for these groups were identical to those used in 1994.

The two aggressive driver groups were recruited among drivers who met the general qualifications and who scored high on eight screener questions designed to measure anger, impatience, competitiveness, and vindictiveness of the driver in frequently encountered driving situations. The questions were derived from a driver stress profile developed by Dr. John Larson, and contained in his recent book on aggressive driving, Steering Clear of Highway Madness. Since Dr. Larson's profile contained too many questions to be practicable for telephone screening of prospective participants, PRG selected two questions from each category. The general driver population participants were recruited first. The most aggressive third of the general population drivers had scores of six or more on the screening questions. Accordingly, six was established as the threshold for qualifying participants in the aggressive driver groups. Although the procedure was somewhat arbitrary, results of the group discussions confirm that the aggressive groups indeed are more likely to engage in risky driving practices.

The five sessions involving Beltway drivers were held in a permanent focus group interviewing facility in Chevy Chase, Maryland. Members of the Capital Beltway Safety team observed the sessions through a one-way mirror. The focus groups were recorded on both audio and video tape.

	General Drivers			Aggressive Drivers
Characteristics	May 6 6:00 p.m. (N=11)	May 6 8:00 p.m. (N=11)	May 7 6:00 p.m. (N=10)	May 7 8:00 p.m. (N=10)	May 8 6:00 p.m. (N=10)	Total (N=52)
Residence Maryland Virginia	7 4	7 4	6 4	7 3	7 3	34 18
Gender Male Female	5 6	6 5	5 5	5 5	5 5	26 26
Age 21-39 40-59	9 2	7 4	5 5	7 3	4 6	32 20
Beltway Use 1-2 Days 3+ Days Variable	4 7 0	2 7 2	3 7 0	3 7 0	2 8 0	14 36 2
Aggressiveness Score 0 to 2 3 to 5 6 to 9 10 +	3 3 5 0	2 5 4 0	4 4 1 1	0 0 8 2	0 0 8 2	9 12 26 5

Two of the three groups of commercial drivers were from the same companies that participated in 1994. They were Roadway Express (held at the Alexandria terminal) and North American Van Lines (held at the Hyattsville terminal). In fact, several of the drivers in each of these two groups were the same drivers who participated in 1994. The third group, representing drivers of straight trucks, were employees of Skippy's Trucking of Manassas, Virginia. These were dump truck drivers, either hauling bulk materials to asphalt plants or asphalt paving material to road construction sites. They replaced drivers from Sea-Cap, a fresh seafood delivery company that participated in the 1994 groups. The 1997 commercial driver sessions had a total of 17 participants, six at Skippy's, five at Roadway Express and six at North American Van Lines. The commercial driver discussions were held in or near trucking company terminals, by arrangement with terminal managers. Audio recordings were made of the truck driver sessions.

Findings

The reason Capital area motorists use the Beltway was the same in 1997 as it was in 1994. They believe the Beltway still is the quickest, easiest way to get people where they want to be. In many cases, people do not believe there are other choices, especially if the trip involves crossing the Potomac from Virginia to Maryland or vice versa.

Although some motorists are apprehensive about the safety of driving on the Beltway, most are not. Even those who see the Beltway as more hazardous than other interstate highways consider the risks acceptable. Few of the participants have experienced crashes on the Beltway, although many have experienced near misses.

As in 1994, congestion still is the major issue motorists and truckers dislike about the Beltway because congestion interferes with drivers' desires to complete their trips quickly. Although safety issues emerge when people are asked what they dislike about the Beltway, they do not seem to be as universal as complaints about congestion.

When motorists were asked to evaluate the safety of driving on the Beltway, a sizable minority described it as hazardous. Most, however, did not think it more hazardous than travel on other urban interstates. Many believe, however, that it is more hazardous now than it was three years ago, reflecting increasing concerns about aggressive driving behavior.

Focus group participants listed and ranked perceived causes of Beltway crashes. There were some remarkable differences between the 1994 and 1997 groups. Unsafe driving behaviors were among the most important factors in both years, but the 1997 participants ranked them among their top three causes twice as often as the 1994 participants. Excessive speed, aggressive driving, inattention, unsafe lane changing, and tailgating were most frequently designated major crash causes in the 1997 focus groups. Aggressive driving was the number one concern among the "general" motorist groups. It was mentioned as one of the three most serious crash causes by 53 percent of the participants. This compares with only 2 percent among the 1994 participants. Interestingly, the aggressive driver groups were less concerned about aggressive driving, 15 percent of them mentioned aggressive driving as one of the major crash causes.

The perception that congestion is a major crash cause was only half as frequent in 1997 as it was three years earlier. A possible explanation is that current concern about unsafe drivers has drawn attention away from congestion. Beltway traffic has not diminished in the past three years, and there have been many roadway and traffic management improvements that may have relieved some congestion.

Roadway design and maintenance factors also have declined as perceived major causes of Beltway crashes. Mentions of design and maintenance factors as major crash causes decreased from 97 percent in 1994 to 33 percent in 1997. Merge lanes where motorists share acceleration and deceleration lanes were the top concern in the category, and the percentage did not change much between 1994 and 1997.

Commercial drivers' lists of crash causes were similar to those of other Beltway users.

Possible Solutions

Each of the 1997 focus groups was asked to take a few minutes and discuss possible solutions for the one or two crash causes most members of the group had ranked among the three most serious causes. Three groups discussed solutions to speeding, two addressed aggressive driving, two discussed unsafe lane changing, and two discussed how to deal with bad weather. Inattentiveness, truck blind spots, and driver training also were topics of brief problem solving sessions.

Aggressive Drivers

A general consensus among participants of what driver's meant by the term "aggressive driving" was not exactly clear, but included actions such as weaving in and out of traffic to get ahead, tailgating, excessive speed and conflicts with other motorists.

Suggestions to help solve the aggressive driver problem include the following items:

• Photo imaging aggressive drivers (two groups "invented" this without knowing about Maryland's plans)
• More enforcement campaigns like "Smooth Operator"
• More law enforcement presence on the road
• More law enforcement vehicles cruising, fewer stopped on the shoulder
• More emphasis on unsafe driving, less on speed and minor violations
• Tougher sanctions on repeat violators

The following suggestions were made to counter unsafe lane changing:

• More law enforcement presence (including enforcement solutions recommended above)
• "Keep Right" education and enforcement
• PI&E on dangers of unsafe lane changes
• Courtesy campaigns

More highly structured questions were asked of the groups on a number of topics of specific interest to the Capital Beltway Safety Team. Since the volume of issues to be covered exceeded the time available in each group, some topics were not discussed in all groups. The key findings on each topic are shown below:

Aggressive Drivers Are Often Competitive

A battery of questions asked how often motorists got angry, were impatient, were competitive or punished other drivers in driving situations. While almost all drivers said they at least sometimes got angry when another car cut them off, or felt impatient if they were behind schedule, there were some clear differences in whether they engaged in competitive or vindictive actions.

Figure 1. Questionnaire Responses - General vs. Aggressive Drivers.

The most discriminating question was how often participants compete with other cars in traffic jams. Seventy-five percent of the participants in the aggressive driver groups said they "always" or "often" compete while none of the participants in the "general" groups compete that frequently. Drivers in the aggressive group also said they more frequently got angry when cut off, had passengers tell them to calm down, blocked other cars trying to pass, and blocked cars trying to change lanes. One woman called driving on the Beltway "A competitive sport." Aggressive drivers spoke differently from the general drivers. Both groups blame much of the unsafe driving on the Beltway on the "other driver." General groups expressed dismay at specific unsafe driving maneuvers that make them nervous on the Beltway -- the drivers who speed, change lanes frequently, cut them off, and force their way ahead. Aggressive drivers, on the other hand, blame those who are going too slow in the passing lane, cars at the speed limit who "force" them to change lanes and weave in and out of traffic. As one young woman phrased it, "Get out of my way, please."

Aggressive drivers also admitted to going much faster than the general groups -- at speeds of 60-70 during non-peak hours. They think that is a safe speed and that cars going 55 mph should be in the slow lanes. They speak of "Left Lane Etiquette." One young man said "If I'm going 80 mph in the fast lane and someone comes up behind me, I should move out of his way." They think slower drivers are the problem.

Interestingly, the aggressive drivers think there should be a minimum speed limit on the Beltway and it should be 55 mph. The general groups thought a minimum speed limit should be set at about 40 mph.

While the aggressive drivers are moving at speed to get to their destination, they express annoyance at other drivers who hinder their progress. Paradoxically, the aggressive drivers will go out of their way to block another car trying to pass or cut in front of them.

More Enforcement Wanted by Drivers

A high proportion of participants wanted more law enforcement presence on the Beltway. None wanted less. Most participants acknowledged that law enforcement stops directly or indirectly cause some crashes, but they think that they prevent more crashes than they cause.

Most participants want law enforcement to give higher priority to unsafe driving, including excessive lane changes, cutting other drivers off, tailgating, and other violations they associate with aggressive driving.

Most drivers were not familiar with fines and points assessed for different violations. However, they generally think that sanctions should be tougher on habitual violators. Some also have the impression that the judicial system is too lenient with repeat offenders, granting hardship permits too readily when licenses are suspended.

Few drivers in any of the groups claimed to obey the posted speed limits. Most said they drive the Beltway at between 60 and 70 miles per hour when conditions permit. They do not think that these speeds are unsafe and count on law enforcement allowing 10 to 15 miles per hour tolerance. Almost all would agree that anything over 75 is unsafe. Some participants would like the road to be posted at 65 or 70 and be strictly enforced. Others disagreed, maintaining that no matter what speed is posted, people will drive 10 to 15 miles per hour faster. Even the most aggressive drivers in the sessions think that speed enforcement is important, but the people who should be cited are those who drive at unreasonably high speeds.

Most participants agreed that slow vehicles can be a safety problem on the Beltway, but few would recommend increased enforcement of minimum speed laws. Both truck drivers and other motorists are more concerned when the slow vehicles block the passing lanes. Many would like laws, education, and enforcement that would keep slow vehicles in the right hand lanes.

The majority of participants (about 80 percent) claimed they always wear their seat belts. Almost all were in favor of primary laws for child restraints. However, many object to laws making failure to wear a seat belt a stopping violation. Some said that failure to wear seat belts is one of the minor violations, like expired stickers or minor equipment deficiencies, that does not justify the hazard caused by pulling a vehicle over on the Beltway. Others said that failure to wear a seat belt does not cause crashes and should be a matter of individual choice.

Awareness of the current enforcement campaign (Smooth Operator, April 1997) against aggressive driving ranged between 30 percent and 70 percent, depending on the composition of drivers in each group. The aggressive driver groups were more aware of the campaign than general drivers. Relatively few participants had unaided recall of the name Smooth Operator. However, most participants, even aggressive drivers, approved of it.

Several focus groups spontaneously suggested an activity similar to the proposed aggressive driver video imaging project. However, there are some people who think it is too intrusive and that citations issued to registered owners without identifying the driver will and should be dismissed in the courts.

Beltway drivers' suggestions to deal with the problem of excessive speed included:

• More law enforcement presence
• Photo radar
• Speed warning devices (saying "Your speed is XX mph--Slow Down")
• Higher speed limits, but with zero tolerance for violators of these higher limits
• Variable limits (responding to road conditions)
• Different limits for each lane
• Dummy law enforcement cars and drone radar

Incident and Traffic Management Issues Supported

Most participants believe that it is a good idea to immediately move cars involved in minor crashes out of the travel lanes. Most also are aware that the law requires it. However, most participants disagreed that cars left on the shoulder should be subject to immediate towing. They do not think they pose a great hazard and believe that immediate towing would be unfair. The prevailing view is that owners should be allowed 24 hours to move the vehicle.

About half of the people know that there are motorist assistance patrols on the Beltway. Only one person in all of the focus groups said they had been stranded on the Beltway, and in that case, response was almost instantaneous.

Many participants own cellular phones and most of those knew that they could dial #77 to report non-emergency crashes. Some also said they could use the same number to contact law enforcement to report unsafe driving but this was not as widely known. Awareness of the #77 communication system was much higher in 1997 than it was in 1994.

Most participants were receptive to the advanced traffic management systems described to them but said they had not noticed any tangible evidence that they were working, so far.

Work Zone Issues Supported

Relatively few people believe that construction is a direct cause of many Beltway crashes. Most think construction leads to congestion and in that way may be an indirect cause. Most of the participants said construction signs give enough advance warning, although some said that traffic sometimes backs up beyond the signs, thus negating any advance warning. Others complained about false alarms, warning of construction that is not there when they reach the site.

Opinions were split about 50/50 regarding whether law enforcement presence should be required at major construction sites. Some people think it is a waste of money. Others think the sight of a flashing blue light calls attention to construction and helps slow traffic down to a safe speed.

Almost all participants claimed they slow down in construction zones but few slow down to the speeds shown on the signs. A few remarked that during rush hours a driver is lucky to get up to the posted speed in a construction zone.

Operation and Design Issues

Most participants think the Beltway is well maintained. There were scattered complaints about potholes and rough pavement.

Many differences were cited between Maryland and Virginia segments. Virginia was generally thought to have better merge lanes for traffic entering and exiting the Beltway. There also were comments that the width of the road is more uniform in Virginia, with fewer lane drops. Some people commented that they like the signs listing the next three upcoming exits in Virginia. The Springfield interchange, however, was mentioned by many as one of the worst areas on the Beltway. Maryland was mentioned by several as having more and better merge lanes onto city streets at the end of exit ramps. Some also thought the pavement is better in Maryland. However, the curves near the Mormon Temple were frequently mentioned as a hazard. The I-270 interchange also was frequently criticized.

The general consensus was that lane markings are adequate when the weather is fair. There were some complaints that they are hard to see when it rains or snows. A few participants advocated raised reflective lane markers like the "Botts Dots" used in California. Others in the same groups argued that they would not stand up to DC weather, and snow plowing in the winter.

Neither creating additional lanes by narrowing existing ones nor utilizing the shoulders to handle rush hour traffic were thought to be good ways to relieve congestion. Additional lanes are strongly desired, but there was no support for building HOV lanes. Many participants commented that HOV lanes are a waste of taxpayer money that have failed to provide any substantial relief to congestion. Few participants car pool on the Beltway. Most of those who drive to work alone said they cannot find a partner who goes to work at the same time and place or they said that they need their car at work.

Some participants already use mass transit for their daily commute. Most do not have any form of mass transit available to them that can get them to and from work in anywhere near the time they can get there on the Beltway, even during rush hours. A few commented that between parking and fares, mass transit is too expensive.

There was almost universal support for the idea of building additional roads to take traffic off the Beltway. The most popular proposal was a bypass for I-95 through traffic.

Trucks and Cars Complain About Each Other

Both truck drivers and motorists complained about the need to drive on the Beltway together. Some motorists said they were nervous around the large trucks and take steps to distance themselves from the trucks. The truck drivers, on the other hand, think that most motorists do not understand that trucks need more room to stop and have blind spots where they cannot see smaller vehicles.

Trucks were mentioned as a hazard of driving on the Beltway in every group of Beltway drivers. One motorist had survived a crash in which she and her husband were forced off the road by a truck that changed lanes. One trucker reported a crash, years ago in which he drove off the road to avoid a car that changed lanes in front of him. Others told stories about near misses and aggressive driving by truckers There also were complaints about debris falling off trucks and that trucks block the vision of drivers in smaller vehicles. However, only 2 percent of the 1997 participants (one person) identified trucks among the three things they believe are the most important causes of Beltway crashes, down from 14 percent in 1994.

Several motorists described the precautions they take around trucks. Some were very aware of where the blind spots are and that trucks are very difficult to slow down when heavily loaded. Yet others admitted to speeding up to prevent trucks from changing lanes ahead of them because they did not want the truck to impair their view ahead.

Awareness was very low for public information and educational campaigns that were supposed to better inform motorists about how to drive safely around trucks. The only group that had any knowledge of the "NoZone" campaign were the Roadway Express drivers because one of the participants in that group was filmed for the PSA produced for television. It evidently has received very little air time. A few more people were aware of an older campaign called Sharing the Road with Trucks, but knowledge of its content was superficial.

There was some support in the motorist groups for a rush hour truck ban on the Beltway. One person volunteered that trucks should be banned from the Beltway altogether. However, others in the group felt that truck bans might have serious economic repercussions. Truckers maintain that most people have no idea of the economic impact truck bans would have.

All the commercial drivers were aware of the left lane prohibition on the Beltway and most said it makes their job very difficult. Some said they are tempted, occasionally, to jump into the left lane but the fear of getting caught is enough to keep them from doing it. All were aware of the restriction of trucks carrying hazardous materials to the right two lanes of the Beltway. One driver disputes the wisdom of the rule, however. He contends that those lanes are the most dangerous lanes to be in because of more frequent lane changes as motorists approach their exits.

All of the commercial drivers claimed that the company they work for has an inspection program that exceeds the requirements. They prefer random inspections at the terminal to inspections at weigh stations or on the roadside. This is especially the case for drivers who are paid by weight or load because the time an inspection takes is money they do not make.

Most of the truck drivers have noticed the rollover prevention devices that have been installed on Beltway exits over the past couple of years. They generally do not perceive them as benefiting them personally because they are local and know which ramps can cause problems. They do believe the devices save lives and said there are additional locations where the signals would be beneficial.

Public Information and Education Issues

Participants get information on traffic conditions primarily from radio and TV traffic reports. Some also use and appreciate the information given on the variable overhead signs on the Beltway and major highways flowing into it. Most think the signs are helpful but some do not see them on the segments they travel and a few said they do not give enough information to really help. A few said they do not bother to look because the Beltway is always congested. Two of ten people in the group in which the subject was covered said they have used their cellular phones to call AAA for traffic information. Neither has called the DOT. A few participants have sometimes attempted to tune in Traffic Advisory radio when the sign directed to do so. They had difficulty finding the station or getting clear reception.

Most participants said they take alternate routes when they know the Beltway is congested and can find an alternate. They acknowledged that it would help them if appropriate alternates were displayed on the variable signs.

Participants have noticed safety messages on the variable signs. The only campaigns that came to mind were about drunk driving and seat belts. They approve of using the sign boards for this kind of message.

Some participants, including truck drivers and other motorists, believe that licensing requirements do not assure that drivers are adequately prepared to drive on the Beltway. A few expressed concern that multi-lingual tests put people on the road who cannot read signs. Some think an insufficient amount of experience is required. Some suggested that continuing driver education should be required and that drivers should be re-tested periodically.

General Discussion

Pattern of Beltway Use

As shown in the following table, 33 of the participants in the current groups drive to work, although not necessarily on the Beltway or necessarily during peak hours. Only 25 of the participants in the current groups were on the Beltway during peak commuting hours. Counted in the number that do not drive to work are people who work at home, whether as a homemaker or in a home-based business. Although the ratio of participants who drive to work is reversed compared to the 1994 groups, it does not necessarily represent a change in commuting habits. It may be an artifact of the times the sessions were held. There was no afternoon session in the 1997 wave. The ratio using the Beltway during peak commuting hours is just about the same in the 1997 groups as it was in 1994.

	General Drivers			Aggressive Drivers
Characteristics	May 6 6:00 p.m. (N=11)	May 6 8:00 p.m. (N=11)	May 7 6:00 p.m. (N=10)	May 7 8:00 p.m. (N=10)	May 8 6:00 p.m. (N-10)	Total (N=52)
Drive to Work? Yes No	6 5	6 5	9 1	6 4	6 4	33 19
On-Peak Beltway Use? Yes No	5 6	5 6	6 4	5 5	4 6	25 27
Beltway Segment Northern Eastern Southwestern Northwestern	7 2 6 6	4 3 6 3	5 1 6 4	7 2 2 4	8 2 3 6	31 10 23 23
Number of Segments One Two Three Four	6 1 3 1	7 3 1 0	5 4 1 0	6 3 1 0	4 3 3 0	28 14 9 1

More of the participants drive on the Northern segment of the Beltway (between I-270 and I-95 to Baltimore) than on any other. This is consistent with the 1994 study. Also as in 1994, relatively few of the current participants drive the Eastern segment (between I-95 from Baltimore and the Wilson Bridge). For unknown reasons the proportions of participants who drive on the Northwestern segment (between I-270 and I-66) was somewhat lower among 1997 participants (44 percent) than the 1994 groups (75 percent). Travel on the Southwestern segment (between the Wilson Bridge and I-66) was somewhat higher in the 1997 groups (44 percent) than it was in 1994 (23 percent).

As in 1994, the North American Van Lines truck drivers were on all sections of the Beltway depending on the locations of pick-ups and deliveries. One of the Roadway drivers used the Southwestern segment of the Beltway all day, every day. The others ran only the short segment between Van Dorn and I-95 South. Skippy's Trucking drivers traveled both Western segments of the Beltway and also the Northern segment in Maryland. Sea Cap, which participated in the 1994 groups, covered all of the DC area from their terminal near Baltimore.

Reasons for Using Beltway

The main reason given for using the Beltway is that it saves time getting from one point to another. Participants perceive it as being quicker because there are no traffic lights and the speed limit is higher. Some participants added that they use the Beltway only when there is a time advantage. They seek alternate routes when they know there are delays.

Often the Beltway is the only way to get between Maryland and Virginia because there are few other ways to cross the river. A few people suggested alternate ways to cross but all agreed that unless Beltway traffic was really bad, the alternates often would require more time than waiting out traffic on the Beltway. Usually, it is the most direct route between destinations. Many participants remarked that their business takes them to other businesses located close to Beltway exits.

The reasons given for driving the Beltway did not vary much between groups and there were no discernible differences among general drivers, aggressive drivers, and truckers. The reasons given in the 1997 groups also were consistent with the reasons given in 1994.

Dislikes

No prompt was necessary to get the first group to talk about what they do not like about the Beltway. The first complaint was congestion. One participant said she had a love/hate relationship with the Beltway. She said, "It is like the girl who had a little curl on her forehead. When she is good she is very, very good, and when she is bad, she is horrid." Sometimes people can shoot right down the Beltway and get to a destination very quickly. Other times, they just sit for hours. Congestion and delays were also the first complaint in Group 2 and Group 3. Although congestion did not come up as early in the aggressive driver groups, it did come up as one of the major things they disliked.

One of the Group 4 aggressive drivers said that it is congestion that leads to all of the other things he does not like about the Beltway: unsafe lane changes, tailgating and general hostility. (Interestingly, aggressive driving behaviors did not come up this early in the three general driver groups.) An aggressive driver in Group 5 said she never likes the Beltway because it is always jammed with traffic. Another added that it is often backed up for no apparent reason. One of the men responded that it might be the result of the rubbernecking that happens every time a law enforcement officer pulls someone over. Another Group 5 woman complained that she does not know any good ways to get off when it gets jammed.

One woman from Group 1 complained that some spots on the Beltway are poorly designed. The spot that scares her most is trying to get from where the Clara Barton Parkway enters the Beltway to the exit to I-270. She says four lanes of traffic need to be crossed in a very short distance, and every time she crosses it she thinks she is taking her life in her hands. This brought up other spots participants felt were hazardous. One mentioned merging onto the Beltway from I-270. Another mentioned the Springfield interchange where traffic from the Beltway merges with traffic from I-95, I-395 and other major highways and there is an incredible amount of necessary lane changing to get in position to take a desired route. A woman in Group 2 said she thinks the Beltway is dangerous, especially the curvy sections. A woman who grew up in New Jersey agreed, saying that she thinks it is much more frightening than the Jersey Turnpike and most of the roads in the New York metropolitan area.

Group 1 also complained about exits with no merge lanes or short merge lanes onto surface streets. The example given was Democracy Boulevard. One participant said that if drivers do not yield, they probably will get hit by traffic from the surface street. If drivers stop, they will back up traffic on the ramp, causing a hazardous situation behind them. Group 4 (aggressive drivers) also complained about on-ramps, although the woman who volunteered the response was one of the three least aggressive drivers in the group. She said it frightened her a bit to merge into faster Beltway traffic. The woman next to her (who also was relatively low on the aggressiveness scale in this group) said she did not like merge lanes where cars were both exiting and entering the Beltway in the same lane, especially when the exits and entrances are close together.

Another complaint in the first group was HOV lanes. The general idea expressed by the group was that they are a big waste. It does not make sense to them that traffic should be at a standstill in the non-HOV lanes while there are hardly any cars in the lanes reserved for high occupancy vehicles. One participant also complained that on roadways with a single HOV lane, traffic runs faster in the regular lanes than in the HOV lane, which lessens their ability to convince people to car pool. The HOV issue also came up in Group 5. One of the aggressive drivers in the group said, "It is maddening when the highway is choked and the HOV lanes are empty." He asked, "How long will it take before the government realizes that it is not working, that the theory does not fit the practice?"

Several members of Group 2 added that they think the road is confusing. In particular, some of them wished the signs would have directions on them (North, South, East and West) because they are not familiar with the place names, even though they have lived in the area for up to six years. The use of "inner loop" and "outer loop" on some signs also is confusing to some. One group member had to explain it to several other group members. Confusing signs also came up in Group 3. One example given was the directional signs entering the Beltway from I-95 in Maryland. The signs say "New Hampshire Avenue--Silver Spring" in one direction and "College Park--I-95 South" in the other direction. If drivers do not know where these places are, the man said, the signs are meaningless. Another Group 3 member said she thinks that designating the highway as I-95, I-495 and I-395 in different places also is confusing. Two of the aggressive drivers in Group 5 had a conversation about how strange and confusing the Beltway seems in the other person's state. Signs were blamed for a lot of the confusion.

The most aggressive driver in Group 4 said that he hates all the construction, particularly when it is done during the business day. (He uses the Beltway all day long to call on clients.) Someone else built on this idea and said that even more annoying are signs that warn of construction ahead when none is going on. Several others gave examples of cases where lanes were coned off and there was no construction.

A member of Group 3 brought up inattentive drivers as one thing he does not like about the Beltway. He says he often sees people reading newspapers as they are driving.

Group 5 generated a longer list of things they do not like about the Beltway. One man mentioned that his pet peeve is when people abandon cars on the Beltway during snow storms. Another said he hates the bridge painting that goes on every night when he uses the Beltway. Another man mentioned that the sun often blinds Eastbound traffic early in the morning, especially between Georgia and Connecticut Ave. A male driver from California said that there are two things about the California highways that strike him as superior to the Beltway. One is exit signs that constantly show the next three exits and the distance to them. The other is "Botts Dots," the raised reflectors between lanes that are easier to see in the rain and can be felt when a lane is accidentally crossed.

Trucks were mentioned among the initial dislikes about the Beltway only in Group 3. The woman who mentioned trucks said that many of them slow down traffic and they do not stay in the right hand lane when going slow. One of the men added that trucks stay out of the left lane, but unless drivers are comfortable going over 70 in the left lane, they are pretty much stuck behind the trucks. Another man added that sometimes truckers are aggressive and related a frightening experience when he passed a truck. The trucker got angry and tried to run him off the road. Poor brakes were also mentioned.

Generally, what commercial drivers like least about the Beltway is losing time in traffic jams. This is especially so for drivers who are paid by weight or load, rather than being paid hourly. The dump truck drivers from Skippy's trucking said they try to avoid the Beltway during the peak hours because they do not want to get stuck in stopped traffic. One said he would drive an extra 20 miles per trip on surface roads to avoid the possibility of getting stuck up there because it could save him time.

Some of the commercial drivers complain that they do not like being prohibited from the left lane on the Beltway especially when there is slow traffic ahead of them, three abreast, and the left lane is running free.

Another dislike about the Beltway, especially for dump truck drivers, is that the road is very rough in sections. They say that truckers feel the bumps and potholes more than ordinary motorists. They wonder what the basis is for decisions on what section gets re-paved. They mentioned that Virginia is re-paving a section near I-66 that was paved recently and did not need it, while other sections like Telegraph to Van Dorn are really rough.

Perceived Safety on the Beltway

Overall Assessment

A few members of the first group said they were apprehensive about driving on the Beltway but none felt it was so dangerous that they would not drive it. One member of the group volunteered that it is no worse than similar kinds of interstate highways around other major cities. He said that the Beltway around Baltimore, for example, is no better. In agreement that the Capital Beltway problems are no worse than problems on urban interstates all over the country, another participant spontaneously referred to the current enforcement campaign on aggressive driving. He said that he thinks there are more drivers like that every year and that it is a nationwide problem, not one that is confined to the Capital area.

Group 2 thought the Beltway is fairly hazardous. When the subject was raised by the moderator, one participant after another recited something they personally felt to be dangerous about the road. One of the women in the group said she does not know whether it is the road or the drivers that make her feel threatened. However, none of the members of this group ever had a crash on the Beltway. One woman said her husband did. The car in front of him crashed into another and then somebody hit him. It was clearly a congestion related crash. The same woman also talked about a near miss in which her car was forced to the shoulder by a truck changing lanes. Three members of the group took the position that the Beltway was not especially dangerous compared to other urban interstates they have driven.

Reaction was mixed when Group 3 was asked how safe they think they are on the Beltway. The first to answer said he did not think there was anything inherently dangerous about the road but he sees a lot of unsafe driving on it. He says he likes to drive it at 65 or 70 and a lot of cars, weaving from lane to lane and cutting other drivers off, pass him like he was standing still. Several others agreed, one adding that it is even worse at night when he usually travels the Beltway than it is during the day. One of the women said that it is very dangerous in bad weather when the aggressive drivers with 4-wheel drive vehicles act like they could stop on a dime. One member of Group 3 felt safer on the perimeter interstate around Atlanta than the Capital Beltway. He believes that it has been expanded more to keep up with the increasing traffic volume and has been better maintained.

When Group 4 (the first aggressive driver group) was asked how safe they felt on the Beltway, the initial response was "quite" safe and the body language of this group seemed to indicate that most of them agreed. However, one woman said that it is pretty hazardous during rush hours and tries to avoid using it during those times. Several other group members also talked about dangerous driving and design hazards that made them somewhat apprehensive about the Beltway. One of the moderately aggressive women said she does not believe the Beltway is any more dangerous than a lot of other highways in the area, I-395 for example. She continued that it is rush hour that is dangerous, not the Beltway itself. Another woman said that one of the things that makes it less safe than it could be are people who "drive scared" when they are on it.

Asked how the Beltway compares in safety with other interstates they drive, most members of Group 4 responded that there was not a lot of difference. One said that I-66, west of the Beltway is more dangerous to drive on than the Beltway itself because it is even more congested. Only one person in the group experienced a crash on the Beltway. He was stopped at the end of a ramp leading into University Avenue which has no merge lane. The car behind him was watching traffic on University and assumed he pulled out when there was a small break in the traffic, hitting him in the rear end.

Members of Group 5 (the group with the greatest tendency toward aggressive driving) were generally less concerned about the Beltway's safety than the other groups. The first member of Group 5 to speak about safety on the Beltway said that he thinks he is a bit safer on it than some other interstates because the congestion keeps the speeds down so that people rarely get killed when they crash. However, a second person said there are sections of the Beltway that are not very safe and mentioned the curves near the Mormon Temple. Next, someone talked about the danger of drivers who are not familiar with the Beltway.

Truck drivers expressed mixed opinions about safety on the Beltway. The Skippy's drivers said that the road gets less safe every day but they think it is caused by congestion, not by a change in the roadway or a change in driving behavior. Some North American Van Lines drivers also think it is getting more dangerous but at least one of them thinks it is less dangerous than city streets when driving a big rig. The Roadway Express drivers do not think the road is particularly dangerous but they see a lot of dangerous driving on it. Some of the drivers at North American believe that the Beltway is somewhat more hazardous to drive than other interstate highways they have driven. However, one driver said that the interstate around Atlanta may be worse. He said, however, that the drivers are more aggressive on the Capital Beltway.

Specific Hazards

One member of Group 1 said the major thing that makes the Beltway more hazardous than other urban interstates is the volume of interstate truck traffic on it. He would like to see a bypass that would take the I-95 through truck traffic off the Beltway. One of the women in this group remarked that trucks are frightening because they are so big and that it is hard to see around them. (This from the young female college student who says that trucks are about the only thing she worries about on the Beltway.)

Group 1 turned to unsafe driving behavior early in the discussion. One woman said that it is frightening to look in your mirror and see someone closing rapidly knowing that there is no way they can slow down enough to avoid hitting your car. They usually cut someone off to get into an adjacent lane and then cut back in front. Someone remarked that this is aggressive driving and added that it also occurs in merge lanes where this kind of driver has no regard for the hazards he is causing and just expects other drivers to keep out of the way. Another participant expressed annoyance that these drivers never merge until the last possible second. If a lane closes out, they often continue in it a mile past the warning sign because it is moving faster. Then they expect people who merged earlier to yield when they finally change lanes.

Although the current law enforcement campaign against aggressive driving was mentioned spontaneously in all groups, it came up earliest in Group 5 (the most aggressive group) when they were discussing their perceptions of the road's safety. The man who mentioned it said he thought that the number of drivers who cut other drivers off is increasing, not only on the Beltway but all over the country.

Inattention came up as a Beltway hazard in Group 1. A self professed aggressive driver in this group said it drives him crazy when people drive 55 and pay no attention to traffic behind them, cutting in front of traffic that is moving faster without ever looking in their mirrors. The group chimed in with other examples of inattention, including reading newspapers while driving and talking on the phone.

Short exit ramps were mentioned as a hazard by one of the members of Group 3. He says that eight cars waiting to get onto Georgia Avenue can back cars up onto the Beltway. One of the women in Group 3 said she thinks there are several other design faults that are hazardous. She referred specifically to exits with no merge lanes onto local streets (Georgia Avenue is one of them), left hand entrances that merge into the fast lane, and places where several lanes of traffic must be crossed in a short distance in order to exit. One of the young aggressive males in Group 4 said that he thinks the curves in the area of the Mormon Temple are fairly dangerous. He said that traffic moves entirely too fast in that section. One of the particular complaints in Group 2 was lane drops. Another was left lane exits.

A Group 3 participant pointed out that one of the hazards of the Beltway that is different from other places is that there are so many out-of-town drivers, not only people from other parts of the country, but a lot of drivers from other cultures.

Trucks were mentioned by a member of Group 2 as making the roadway dangerous. One of the women in Group 5 also complained about truck drivers. She remarked that some of the most aggressive drivers she has seen are truck drivers who just bull their way through traffic, intimidating everyone else on the road. She also mentioned the frequency of truck roll-overs on Beltway exits, which she said she reads about every day. It bothers her primarily because it backs up traffic.

The hazards mentioned by commercial drivers are very close to the same as those mentioned by drivers of passenger vehicles. Aggressive drivers were mentioned in all three commercial driver groups as one of the Beltway hazards. One said, "They are just out there, hammer down, and act as if they do not even see you." Another trucker said that even non-aggressive motorists act as though they own the road and that trucks have no right to be on the road.

One of the North American drivers, an older man, said that he thinks the prevailing speeds are faster now than they were a few years ago. Traffic is moving at 65 to 70 miles per hour these days and that is faster than he is comfortable driving. Asked if truckers were partly to blame for the increased speed, he responded that he thought they were, especially drivers of dump truck and "roll off" trucks who get paid by the load. They want to move as many loads as they can so they have an incentive to push the limits. Later on in the discussion, however, another North American driver said that he did not think speed was a particular problem on the Beltway. He said that there is not much speeding going on during rush hours because traffic is almost stopped. Even when traffic is light, he says most people are driving 65 or 70, which is over the speed limit, but not dangerous.

Inattention also was mentioned by all three groups of truck drivers. They said they often saw motorists reading maps while driving on the Beltway and also people talking on cellular phones. The dump truck drivers said weather is a big factor that affects the safety of the Beltway. When it is raining or snowing, the road gets very congested and it is hard to see. "Rubbernecking" was identified as a safety factor on its own.

Perceived Crash Causes

As in 1994, each group was asked to make a list of factors they perceive to be major causes of crashes on the Capital Beltway. Then, each participant was asked to select up to three items from the list that he/she considers to be among the most important causes.

In the 1997 groups, unsafe driving behaviors continued to be the major concern of most participants. Driving conditions, including bad weather and traffic congestion, was the second most serious category of concerns in the 1997 focus groups, followed by roadway design and maintenance factors, trucks and law enforcement (or lack thereof).

There was a perceptible difference between the proportion of 1997 and 1994 participants who designated one or more unsafe driving behaviors among the top three causes of Beltway crashes. In total, the 1997 participants designated about two items each from this category, compared to about one item each among 1994 participants. Excessive speed, aggressive driving, inattention, unsafe lane changing and tailgating were the most frequently designated behaviors in the 1997 groups. The major difference between the 1997 and 1994 groups is that aggressive driving was designated by 38 percent of the 1997 participants, up from only 2 percent in 1994. Also, far more 1997 participants (48 percent) identified excessive speed as a major crash cause than 1994 participants (23 percent).

Interestingly, the aggressive driver groups designated speed as a major crash cause more frequently (65 percent) than the 1997 general driver groups (38 percent). As might have been expected, fewer participants in the aggressive driver groups (15 percent) identified aggressive driving as a major crash cause than participants in the general groups (53 percent). Another marked disparity between the two types of groups was that 35 percent of the aggressive driver group members designated unsafe lane changes as one of their top three items compared to none in the general groups.

There was not much overall difference between 1994 and 1997 with regard to the proportion of participants who blamed driving conditions for crashes on the Beltway. There was, however, a difference in which conditions received focus. In 1994, 44 percent of the participants named congestion as a major cause of Beltway crashes. In 1997, only 23 percent did. Conversely, 37 percent of the 1997 group members said that bad weather was a major crash cause compared to only 9 percent in the 1994 groups.

In aggregate, roadway design and maintenance factors comprised the top category of crash causes among 1994 participants (designated "major" by 97 percent). In 1997, however, the category declined to third rank, with only 33 percent naming design and maintenance items as major crash causes. While shared acceleration/deceleration lanes (called "merge lanes" by most participants) remained the top item and did not change much. Construction, lane markings signs and lane drops declined sharply as major concerns.

There was also noticeably less emphasis on trucks in 1997 than in 1994. In 1994, 20 percent blamed trucks as a major crash cause. In 1997, the proportion declined to 4 percent.

The following table shows the percentage of participants who designated each item as one of the three most important causes. If an item was listed as a crash cause but no participants included it in their three most important items, it is represented as 0 percent. If an item was not mentioned by a group, it is represented as "--" in the table. It should be noted that when items are aggregated, they can and sometimes do, total to more than 100 percent because each participant could select up to three items.

Perceived Crash Causes	Percent General Drivers (N=32)	Percent Aggressive Drivers (N=20)	Percent 1997 Total (N=52)	Percent 1994 Total (N=64)
Unsafe Driving (Cumulative):	166	205	181	95
Speed	38	65	48	23
Aggressive Drivers	53	15	38	2
Inattention	28	30	29	19
Car Phones	0	0	0	--
Moms Watching Kids	--	0	0	--
Unsafe Lane Changing	0	35	13	17
Weaving	--	0	0	--
Tailgating	13	15	13	2
Slow Drivers	0	20	8	3
Left Lane Etiquette	9	0	6	11
DUI/DUID	3	10	6	0
Tired Drivers	6	--	4	0
Rubberneckers	6	0	4	0
Indecisive Drivers	6	--	4	3
Unnecessary Braking	--	10	4	2
Not Signaling	3	--	2	0
Cutting Off Trucks	0	--	0	--
Not Yielding	--	5	2	2
Racing/Showing Off	--	0	0	0
Backing Up on Beltway	--	0	0	--
Not Moving Away From Safety Vehicle	--	0	0	--
Driving on Shoulder	--	0	0	--
Last Minute Lane Changes	--	0	0	--
Stopping in Merge Lane	--	0	0	--
Headlight Flashing	0	--	0	--
Timid Drivers	--	0	0	0
Menacing Drivers (Guns, etc.)	--	0	0	--
Revenge	--	0	0	--
Carelessness (General)	--	--	--	8
Driver Error (General)	--	--	--	5
Driving Conditions (Cumulative):	75	50	65	53
Weather	34	40	37	9
Congestion (Rush Hour)	31	10	23	44
Poor Visibility (Night)	9	--	6	--
Bright Sun	0	--	0	--
Roadway Design and Maintenance:	38	25	33	97
Merge Lanes (Shared Acceleration/Deceleration)	25	20	23	27
Construction	6	0	4	11
Ambiguous/Incorrect Construction Signs	--	--	--	3
Unclear Lane Markings	0	0	0	8
Confusing Signs	0	5	2	17
Inadequate Exit Signs	3	--	2	--
Road Design	3	--	2	--
On/Off Ramps on Opposite Sides	0	--	0	--
Springfield Interchange	0	--	0	--
Short Ramps/Clogged Ramps	0	0	0	--
Potholes	0	--	0	2
Exits With No Merge Lane	--	0	0	0
Lane Drops	--	--	--	9
Inconsistent Ramp Design	--	--	--	5
Poor Snow Removal	--	--	--	5
Debris on Road	--	--	--	3
Short Acceleration Lanes	--	--	--	3
Uneven Road (When Paving)	--	--	--	2
Other Design Features	--	--	--	3
Trucks (Cumulative):	3	5	4	20
Trucks	3	--	2	14
Debris from Trucks/Uncovered Trucks	0	5	2	--
Heavy Equipment/Large Vehicles	--	5	2	--
Trucks In Fast Lane	--	0	0	--
HAZMATS	--	0	0	--
Truck Maintenance	--	--	--	6
Law Enforcement (Cumulative):	0	0	0	2
Law Enforcement Activity	0	0	0	0
Lack of Law Enforcement	0	0	0	2
Speed Limit Too Low	--	--	0	0
Other:	6	0	4	2
Poorly Trained (Inexperienced) Drivers	6	--	4	2
Out of Town Drivers	0	0	0	--
Taxi Drivers	0	--	0	--
Foreign Drivers	--	0	0	--
Diplomats	--	0	0	--
Unsafe Vehicles	--	0	0	--
Not Wearing Seat Belts	0	--	0	--
Blind Spots	0	--	0	--
Media Activity	--	0	0	--

The following list of crash causes was compiled in the three trucking company groups. Interviewing conditions made it difficult to get each participant to designate his top three causes as in the driver groups, but it was accomplished in the group of dump truck drivers. The table shows the number of participants ranking each problem among his top three. In all other cases, the mention of each crash cause is shown as a check mark ().

Perceived Crash Causes	Skippy's # Serious	Roadway Express	North American
Dangerous Driving Behavior: Lane Switching	3
Speed	3
Aggressive Driving	2
Slow Drivers in Left Lane	2
Slow Drivers	1
Irresponsible Drivers	1
Tailgating	1
Bumper Tag	1
Fatigue (Truck Drivers and Others)	1
No Turn Signals
Driver Rage
Shouldering
Lack of Anticipation
Inattention
Failure to Yield
Blocking Trucks from Changing Lanes
Driving in Truck Blind Spot
Rubbernecking
Driving Conditions: Congestion
Roadway Design and Maintenance: Woodrow Wilson Bridge	1
Construction (Especially Daytime)
HOV Lane Entrances and Exits (I-66)
Springfield Interchange
Curves (Between I-270 and College Park)
Washboard Pavement
Lane Drops
Left Exits
Narrow Lanes in Work Areas
Law Enforcement: Insufficient Law Enforcement Presence	2
Law Enforcement Stops
Blue Lights
Cops Writing Warnings, Not Tickets
Poor Law Enforcement Priorities
Other: Non-English Speaking Drivers
Poorly Trained Drivers
Disabled Vehicles in Travel Lanes
Large Recreational Vehicles

Like other Beltway users, the truck drivers' list of crash causes was heavily weighted toward dangerous driving behavior. They were somewhat less inclined than other drivers to blame Beltway crashes on driving conditions but congestion was mentioned in every truck driver group. Roadway Design factors were mentioned fairly often in the trucker groups as they were among other drivers. Law enforcement (or the lack of it ) was mentioned more among the truck drivers than among other drivers.

Solutions

Each of the groups was asked to spend a few minutes to suggest solutions to some of the problems that most members of their group had ranked among the top three causes of Beltway crashes. The content of these discussions is described below.

Aggressive Driving (Group 1)

The very first suggestion to deal with the problem was to put cameras on the overpasses, like those used to show traffic on the TV news, and send tickets to drivers who were observed doing bad things. (This was entirely spontaneous. The idea of "Aggressive Driver Imaging" as proposed by Maryland officials had not been discussed previously.) The second suggestion was to encourage motorists to report aggressive drivers by making a free cellular phone call to law enforcement. The third was more law enforcement on the road so that aggressive drivers would believe there is at least a possibility that they could get arrested. The fourth suggestion was signs asking people to be courteous.

One participant advocated stronger sanctions against repeat offenders. He thinks that the root of the problem is the judicial system. He perceives that even when licenses are suspended, sympathetic judges will reinstate driving privileges if any kind of hardship is shown. This undermines the deterrent effect of law enforcement and hard core violators have no fear of any consequences from their actions. Not only would he like it to be harder to get a license reinstated, but he would like to see habitual violators go to jail.

The group's definition of aggressive driving included speeding, swerving, switching lanes without signaling, tailgating and headlight flashing. Other members of the group added taking revenge on other drivers, competitiveness between drivers and general rudeness. The most aggressive woman driver in the group remarked that the problem with the last few characteristics given by the group was that there is no law to punish stupid drivers, or being competitive, and there should not be. The second most aggressive driver in the group added that he felt that enforcement against aggressive driving should be objective, not subjective. He did not think people should be stopped for being angry or pushy, only for breaking traffic laws.

Aggressive Driving (Group 2)

Group 2 also designated aggressive driving as the most serious cause of Beltway crashes. Asked for suggestions to solve the problem, the first response was to keep better track of repeat offenders and to pull their licenses. Building on that, one woman said that stops should be made and tickets should be issued for every violation, not letting minor violations go by. She thinks the problem is attitudinal and that attitudes would be different if people had some fear that they could get arrested.

The Smooth Operator campaign was mentioned spontaneously by name as a good solution to the problem. Four of the ten members of this group said they were aware that the program is going on. One of the panelists who lives in Fairfax said that there is a "Zero Tolerance" campaign on the Fairfax County Parkway in which every violation, no matter how minor, will be cited by law enforcement. He said this is along the lines of what has been discussed in the group but he had some doubts as to whether it will work against aggressive drivers.

At this point in the discussion, the moderator asked if anyone in the group would characterize themselves as an aggressive driver. The question was countered by a question from the woman who had the highest aggressiveness score (9) in Group 2. She asked "What is an aggressive driver?" The group responded: people who change lanes without signaling, people who cut in and out of lanes trying to go faster than surrounding traffic, people who tailgate, and people who are obnoxious on the road.

The moderator asked the group how they individually deal with aggressive drivers. The most aggressive woman in the group said, "When someone tailgates me, I let them pass and then I tailgate them back." Several members of the group appeared to be a little shocked when she said it, and several said they might think about doing that but it is far too dangerous. One woman said she worries that if she retaliates, someone might shoot her or force her off the road.

Speed (Group 3)

Several members of the Group 3 said that the primary cause of the speeding problem is lack of enforcement. One said he thought the difficulty might be that the road falls in multiple jurisdictions, but whatever the cause, there is not enough law enforcement on the road. Another added that it is hazardous to stop people for speeding on the Beltway and that might be the reason there is so little enforcement. One woman said that she thinks it would help if there were just more law enforcement cars on the road, whether they stopped a lot of speeders or not. She said the mere presence of law enforcement slows people down. One of the participants suggested using photo radar and sending tickets to registered owners by mail. The expected objection to sending the ticket to the registered owner, rather than the driver, finally emerged in the discussion of this solution.

Speed (Group 4)

The aggressive drivers who comprised Group 4 also suggested more enforcement. One of the young males in the group (not the most aggressive) suggested something on the order of photo radar. The difference he envisioned was that the locations of the speed tracking devices would be all around the Beltway and be obvious to motorists. Ideally, they would let the driver know he has been "busted" immediately, rather than the offender just getting a ticket in the mail.

One of the Group 4 women said that she could not believe she was saying it but speeding fines should be higher. She thinks they are not high enough now to really deter speeding. Another woman said that she thinks the speed limit should be raised to 65 and strictly enforced. She also added that people who go less than 55 should be arrested too, because they are just as big a problem. The idea of raising the speed limit and strictly enforcing it was supported by several other members of the group.

One of the most aggressive drivers in the group said he thought that just more law enforcement cars on the road would help a lot. He asked the group how many had ever seen a law enforcement car on the Beltway? Another of the aggressive drivers responded that he had seen a lot more law enforcement just recently. He said maybe it was due to the current enforcement wave to arrest aggressive drivers. (This was the first mention of the campaign in this group and it was spontaneous.)

At this point, the older of the two men at the top of the aggressiveness scale said, "Is everyone crazy? I do not believe that anyone in this group wants more law enforcement on the road. What should be done is fix the design problems with the roadway and if they enforce anything it should be getting the slow drivers out of the fast lane." One of the women said, "Yeah, I feel that way too, but the problem before us was what to do about speeding and I was just trying to help".

One of the women added that the solution might be to make public transportation more attractive so people who are afraid of speeds on the Beltway do not need to drive it. Someone responded that mass transit is an unrealistic solution because people want to drive just because they like driving.

Speed (Skippy's Trucking)

The dump truck drivers also think the only answer to the speed problem is more enforcement. One of the drivers said, "Lets face it, no one drives 55. There are hardly ever any police on the Beltway so everyone drives as fast as they can or as fast as they care to." One of the drivers suggested varying the speed limit on the road depending on conditions. He suggests letting the road run at 65 or 70 when there is little traffic and dropping the speed to 45 or 35 in bad weather or when there is congestion. He said he has seen it done elsewhere and it really works as long as the speed limits are reasonable and strictly enforced. The group also suggested photo radar, dummy cameras and even dummy law enforcement cars on the side of the road. They said Maryland was already using photo radar. Someone said that Virginia tried it and ran into trouble in the courts. It seems someone who got a ticket was able to prove he was out of town.

Unsafe Lane Changes (Group 5)

There was a three way tie among the most serious crash causes in Group 5. They were speed, unsafe lane changes and weather, each named among the three most serious problems by five members of the group. The moderator elected to go with unsafe lane changes first but it became obvious that the group did not want to solve the problem. On two occasions, someone diverted the groups attention to other issues.

When Group 5 was forced to return to the subject of unsafe lane changing, the group in essence, said nothing can be done about it. One man said, "Unless other people change their style of driving, I'm not about to." One of the other men added that it might be a little late to retrain "us" but it would help to train new drivers in safe driving techniques. A young women responded that the training kids get is OK. She said she used to be a careful and considerate driver when she was in high school. It is only since she became confident in her abilities that she became more aggressive. One of the group members suggested that it might help if drivers were re-tested before being allowed to renew their licenses.

One member reluctantly said that the only answer is enforcement. Several other group members agreed. One said that none of them would change their driving behavior unless they felt there was a good chance they were going to get a ticket. However, one participant observed that aggressive drivers who use the road a lot know when law enforcement is on the road and where they will be. They think they can do anything they want without getting caught. It is the people who are unfamiliar with the road who get caught. At this point, one member proposed a solution that very much resembled the Maryland aggressive driver video imaging proposal. The group's reaction to the proposal is detailed in the law enforcement section of this report.

Unsafe Lane Changes (Skippy's Trucking)

The initial response to the lane switching problem was that additional laws are needed against aggressive driving. However, most of the group felt the problem could be addressed under existing laws against improper lane changing and all that needs to be done is to enforce them. One of the drivers knew about Smooth Operator and he thought it was a good thing. Another participant said there should be better enforcement of laws that require slow drivers to keep in the right lane and a lot more public education about them. He said that any driver with any sense should realize that if people are passing them on the right, they are going too slow in their lane and should move over to the right. He added that the same rule should apply to trucks. He noted that there are a lot of fellow truckers who block up the left lanes.

Inattentiveness (Group 3)

Group 3 spent a few minutes discussing driver inattentiveness, which tied with speed as the second ranked crash cause in this session. One member suggested that using cell phones while driving is one of the most common examples of inattention. Seven of the ten people in the group have cellular phones in their cars. One said he always pulls over before he uses his. Another said he has a "hands free" feature on his phone so he can talk with both hands on the wheel. Most of the rest admitted that they sometimes use their phones while driving. One remarked that talking on the phone is not very distracting in normal traffic but admits that she needs to take her eyes off the road to dial so she tries to dial while stopped in traffic or when there are no hazards she needs to pay attention to. No additional laws or enforcement actions were proposed by the group.

Congestion (Group 2)

The first suggestion the group made was to use HOV lanes for regular traffic. The person who put this forward said it is time for the government to admit that HOV lanes do not do what they were intended to do and these lanes would be better used to handle more traffic. Another person said that more lanes should be added. She pointed out an instance where an extra lane was recently added on a Beltway section. She said it makes a noticeable difference in the flow of traffic.

Another suggestion that came up spontaneously was to make public transportation an attractive alternative to driving. The woman who proposed it said that lack of parking at Metro stations is a significant deterrent to using the system. She also said it appears that authorities are trying to make the public transportation system less attractive by raising prices (extending the hours that are considered "on peak"). Other deterrents to using mass transit are that it does not go where people need to be, it takes longer than driving (other than down town) and trains are not frequent enough. Although a few members of this group were aware of busses that would take them where they wanted to go, none take the bus because they would still have to pay for parking at the Metro station and buses are slower than driving.

Bad Weather (Group 3)

Acknowledging there was not much that can be done to change the weather, Group 3 applied itself to the problem of making the Beltway safer during bad weather. The first suggestion was doing a better job of snow plowing. Several participants said that they believe a better job of snow plowing is being done at present than was done in the past but plows could get out a little earlier.

Another participant said that he thought rain was more of a safety problem than snow. A woman suggested grooved pavement. A man said that reflective lane markers would help. There was some discussion about the difficulty of maintaining reflective lane markers in the area's climate.

Bad Weather (Group 5)

Although weather was tied with speed and unsafe lane changes as the most serious crash causes, one of the participants in Group 5 decided he wanted to talk about weather first. The group went along with it because, as aggressive drivers, they really did not want to talk about the other two problems.

The person who changed the subject wanted to get a second chance to sell the group on "Botts Dots" as lane markers, a subject he had previously mentioned. Another person in the group reacted, saying "Yeah, but the snow plows will rip them up." A third person said she thought they had already done it. Someone else said they tried recessed reflective markers and he understood that freezing water pushed them up and there are now potholes where the markers used to be.

One of the women said she liked the overhead signs that told people to slow down when the roads are slippery ahead. One of the men said that those signs are really dangerous because people actually do slow down, and those of us who are driving 70 pile into the back of them. Seriously, he said, he has seen three or four crashes in the area of the signs.

An additional suggestion was better driver training teaching new drivers that they needed to adjust their driving to accommodate bad weather. A participant added that special attention should be paid to making drivers aware that the road is slipperiest when it first starts to rain.

Truck Blind Spots (North American Van Lines)

The terminal manager said that North American Van Lines recently sent out a company-wide directive that convex mirrors (like those used on school busses) must be installed ahead of the cab on the right side of every vehicle. The drivers said it would help a lot, because it is impossible to see low objects on that side of the vehicle with the current side view mirrors. One of the operators also suggested that some kind of audible alarm, like a back up horn, should be installed about half way back on the trailer He thinks this would help warn cars that they should either speed up or fall back if a truck does not see them and starts to pull over. Another driver added that the turn signals should be bigger and brighter, and perhaps be arrow shaped to give motorists better warning and fewer excuses.

Driver Training (Roadway Express)

Commercial drivers from Roadway Express believe that drivers should get better training. They do not think that regular driver training courses give new drivers enough time behind the wheel. Also, they are not taught many of the things commercial drivers are taught. One example is the "Smith System" which they said is looking and planning ahead as far as possible to avoid potential problems. They said it would be a good idea to require people to receive additional on-road instruction after they have been driving for a while to correct any bad habits they have developed. The truckers would be in favor of requiring additional on-road training periodically as part of the license renewal process. Courtesy ought to be one of the major elements of continuing driver education, according to these drivers.

Specific Issues

Aggressive Driving

As noted earlier in this report, there were distinctive differences in perceptions between the three sessions composed of a general mix of drivers and the two that were designed to represent aggressive drivers. To fully understand their perspective on other issues, it is helpful to compare the answers of drivers included in the "aggressive" groups to those in the "general" groups on the questions used to qualify drivers for inclusion in the aggressive groups.

The first two questions were designed to measure frequency of getting angry in driving situations. Although nearly all of the participants in both groups said they get angry when they are cut off by another driver at least sometimes, 55 percent of participants in the aggressive groups often or always get angry compared to only 37 percent of the general drivers. Only 38 percent of participants in the general groups admit that passengers sometimes tell them to calm down compared to 65 percent of the participants in the aggressive groups.

Participants in the aggressive groups also have a greater tendency to be impatient. Nearly all participants (95 percent) in the aggressive groups admitted that they often or always get impatient when behind schedule. This compares with only 33 percent in the general groups. Similarly, 80 percent of participants in the aggressive groups get impatient when the car ahead slows down compared to 32 percent of the participants in the general groups.

On two questions designed to measure competitiveness, the question that asked how often they compete with other cars in traffic jams was discriminating. In the aggressive groups, 75 percent of the participants admitted that they often or always compete and none said they never do. The proportions are almost reversed in the general groups where 78 percent claim they never compete and the remainder admit to competing only sometimes. Only two of the 52 participants stated that they sometimes drag race at stop lights, and both were in Group 5.

There also was a difference between the general and aggressive groups on two questions designed to measure vindictiveness or actions taken to punish other drivers. Half of the aggressive drivers said they block cars trying to pass at least sometimes. This compares with only 19 percent of the general drivers. In the aggressive group, 40 percent sometimes block cars trying to change lanes compared to only 10 percent in the general groups.

Although there was a continuum of aggressiveness scores in both the general and aggressive groups (a third of the participants in general groups had scores that could have placed them in the aggressive groups), there was a discernible qualitative difference between the groups on a number of issues. It was noticed by the moderator and observers, as well as by the participants themselves. There were occasions in both of the aggressive groups where participants talked in terms of "us" and "them." When Group 4 was asked directly how many would confess to being aggressive at times, all but one raised their hands. The one man who did not raise his hand scored just over the threshold of qualification for an aggressive group. Later, he said, "If keeping people from cutting in line ahead of me are included, I am aggressive." Almost all members of Group 5 also admitted to being aggressive drivers.

The moderator asked Group 4 how they defined aggressive driving. One of the men simply gestured to the list of Beltway crash causes they had completed. Individual behaviors they named were weaving from lane to lane, cutting others off, tailgating, speeding, showing off, not allowing cars to merge in front of them and getting angry at other drivers. Everyone laughed when the moderator asked how many of them ever got angry on the Beltway. When asked how many ever made an obscene gesture to another driver, several said "Not any more." The implication was that they worry about retaliation.

Screening Question	General Drivers		Aggressive Drivers
	Number	Percent	Number	Percent
You get angry when cut off ... Always (3)	3	9%	2	10%
Often (2)	9	28%	9	45%
Sometimes (1)	18	56%	9	45%
Never (0)	2	6%	0	0%
Passengers tell you to calm down ... Always (3)	0	0%	0	0%
Often (2)	0	0%	2	10%
Sometimes (1)	12	38%	11	55%
Never (0)	20	63%	7	35%
You get impatient when behind schedule ... Always (3)	4	13%	6	30%
Often (2)	6	19%	13	65%
Sometimes (1)	19	59%	1	5%
Never (0)	3	9%	0	0%
You get impatient when the car ahead slows down ... Always (3)	2	6%	3	15%
Often (2)	5	16%	13	65%
Sometimes (1)	14	44%	4	20%
Never (0)	11	34%	0	0%
You compete with other cars in traffic jams ... Always (3)	0	0%	2	10%
Often (2)	0	0%	13	65%
Sometimes (1)	7	22%	5	25%
Never (0)	25	78%	0	0%
You drag race at stop lights ... Always (3)	0	0%	0	0%
Often (2)	0	0%	0	0%
Sometimes (1)	0	0%	2	10%
Never (0)	32	100%	18	90%
You block cars trying to pass ... Always (3)	0	0%	0	0%
Often (2)	0	0%	1	5%
Sometimes (1)	6	19%	9	45%
Never (0)	26	81%	10	50%
You block cars trying to change lanes ... Always (3)	0	0%	0	0%
Often (2)	0	0%	0	0%
Sometimes (1)	3	9%	8	40%
Never (0)	29	91%	12	60%

Enforcement Issues

This topic was covered in detail in Groups 1, 2, 4 and 5, and all of the commercial driver groups. Relevant comments from Group 3 are included where appropriate

Adequacy of Law Enforcement Presence

In Group 1, five of the participants felt there was too little law enforcement presence on the Beltway. The remainder (6 people) felt the amount of law enforcement presence was just about right. Ensuing discussion revealed some dissatisfaction with the deployment of law enforcement. Several people mentioned that they did not believe it was effective when there were many law enforcement cars working the same area. They said they usually can sense that law enforcement is there by the way traffic ahead of them is behaving and they know that once they are past the pack of law enforcement cars they are home free. Most of the people in Group 2 also felt that there was not enough law enforcement presence on the Beltway. Group 3 was not asked.

Only three of the ten aggressive drivers in the Group 4 felt that there was not enough law enforcement on the Beltway. However, none thought there should be fewer. The rest accepted the moderator's observation that their silence must indicate that they know how to play the game with the existing amount of law enforcement presence. One woman said that she felt if there is a sufficient amount of law enforcement presence, there is a chance she could get caught and she avoids doing anything stupid.

Four of the ten aggressive drivers in Group 5, all women, felt that there was not enough law enforcement presence on the Beltway. However, none of the participants felt there was too much. One of the women who thought there should be more law enforcement remarked that there was a lot more law enforcement on the road around holidays and that really does reduce crashes and fatalities.

The majority of commercial drivers would like more law enforcement on the road. Although two of the six dump truck drivers said there are enough police out on the Beltway the rest believe there should be more. All agree that more stops should be made. In general, the dump truck driver felt that law enforcement is very tolerant, perhaps too tolerant to motivate people to respect the law. As professional drivers, they want to obey the rules but feel stupid obeying them when others flaunt them and get away with it. The van line drivers said they have noticed an increase in the amount of law enforcement presence on the Beltway but one said there still are not enough of them on the Maryland side.

Hazards of Law Enforcement Activity

Most Group 1 participants believe that law enforcement traffic stops on the Beltway create a hazard. They said it encourages "rubbernecking" and slows traffic to a crawl. One of the participants also mentioned that the shoulders on the Beltway are not very good for pulling people over. The officer sometimes needs to walk the side line of the roadway to get from the police car to the car they stopped. One suggestion was to use the law enforcement car's public address system to direct the car to pull off at the next exit rather than stopping them on the shoulder. Most of the group felt that the idea of turning the blue light off when a car is stopped on the side would increase, rather than decrease, the danger of law enforcement stops although a few thought it might be a good idea if the cars were well off the road.

Most of the drivers in Group 2 also acknowledged that law enforcement sometimes create a hazard when they pull people over, but just seeing a law enforcement car on the road, or on the side of the road, has an effect on aggressive drivers. One went so far as to suggest posting "dummy" law enforcement cars around the Beltway. This group clearly believed that the effect enforcement has on driver behavior more than offsets any hazards created by making stops.

Most of the aggressive drivers comprising Group 4 believe that law enforcement stops on the Beltway creates safety hazards. They pointed out that it slows down traffic and promotes a lot of rubbernecking. None would take the position, however, that making law enforcement stops is so dangerous that law enforcement officers ought to stop doing it. Asked if it would be less of a hazard if officers turned off the blue light after they were out of the travel lanes, the prevailing view in this group was that it would not make much difference.

Several members of Group 5, including both men and women, acknowledged that law enforcement stops on the Beltway during rush hours is a cause of some crashes, and the rest of the group seemed to agree. Asked whether the increased hazard caused by law enforcement activity during rush hour is offset by other safety benefits, the first reaction was, "What would police enforce during rush hours? It certainly would not be speeding." Another participant argued that there is a need to enforce against aggressive behavior like cutting people off and "shouldering." He continued, "I'll bet there is not one of us who does not get a feeling of satisfaction when a cop pull