South Africa's road rage problem goes deeper than bad drivers
Accumulated stress, inequality and normalised violence find expression on the road – and a firearm can turn misperception fatal.
The fatal Johannesburg shooting in which 48-year-old driver Faisal Ul Rehman was killed, and his wife Tehseen Zahara Faisal critically injured, has drawn public attention to the dangers of road rage.
While the legal process will determine the specifics of this case, it raises a broader, more urgent question: Why do ordinary driving conflicts so regularly escalate into lethal violence?
Too often, road rage is framed as a problem of ‘bad drivers’ or isolated incidents of anger. This is simplistic and misleading. Road rage is better understood as a form of interpersonal violence, shaped by psychological processes and embedded within a wider social context of stress, inequality and normalised aggression.
From a behavioural perspective, such incidents are rarely about the immediate trigger. They interact with underlying vulnerabilities, three of which are particularly important.
Road rage does not emerge fully formed; it escalates through identifiable stages
First, threat perception and misinterpretation. Drivers may interpret ambiguous actions as deliberate acts of disrespect or aggression. A minor driving error may be mistaken for a personal insult. Second, emotional flooding. Intense anger, fear or humiliation can overwhelm rational decision-making, and an already stressed driver needs only a minor trigger to cross the tipping point.
Third, deindividuation and anonymity. The physical separation of a vehicle reduces empathy and social restraint, making aggressive responses more likely. A ‘fight or flight’ response can take over, bypassing reflective thinking.
Where firearms are present, the consequences of this split-second escalation can be irreversible.
To understand road rage, we must situate it within a broader ecology of violence and stress. Many South Africans live with chronic exposure to violence, whether in communities or households, which can normalise aggression as a legitimate conflict response.
It heightens vigilance and threat sensitivity. People are quicker to perceive danger, even where it may not objectively exist, and react aggressively. National crime statistics show that arguments and misunderstandings account for over 51% of murders.
At the same time, declining trust in institutions such as the police and criminal justice system has led many to feel they must rely on themselves for protection – including by carrying firearms.
Gun Free South Africa evidence shows that firearms dramatically increase the likelihood that a moment of anger turns fatal. Access to a weapon raises the risk of lethal violence during conflicts, even in disputes that typically wouldn’t otherwise result in death. Firearms escalate impulsive behaviour, diminishing time and space for de-escalation.
Investing in violence-prevention programmes that promote nonviolent norms is essential
Firearms don’t make individuals safer in volatile, emotionally charged situations, the organisation argues; they amplify risk both for the weapon carrier and those around them.
In road rage, this is particularly concerning. Driving already involves heightened arousal, unpredictability, and constrained space. Adding a firearm creates a situation where a split-second decision can have permanent consequences.
In many road rage cases, individuals claim self-defence. Psychologically, the distinction between self-defence and aggression often hinges on perception versus proportionality. Someone may genuinely feel threatened, based on prior experiences, fear, or misinterpretation, without facing an immediate, life-threatening danger.
This gap between perceived and actual threat is critical. Experts typically consider whether the response was proportionate, whether there were opportunities to withdraw, and how quickly the situation escalated. Legally, self-defence requires imminence and necessity. Psychologically, individuals may act on perceived danger that doesn’t meet this threshold.
Road rage does not emerge fully formed; it escalates through identifiable stages. Warning signs include persistent tailgating, verbal threats, attempts to block another vehicle, or exiting a car in a confrontational manner. Once situations shift from verbal expression to physical positioning, the danger escalates.
Here, disengagement is critical. Creating distance, avoiding eye contact, and moving towards a safe, public space can prevent further escalation.
While there is no single ‘type’ of person who engages in road rage, certain risk factors are consistent, an American Psychological Association report says. High stress levels are a primary predictor. Individuals with low frustration tolerance, impulsivity, or hostility traits are more prone to aggressive responses. Men are statistically more likely to be involved in severe incidents, particularly those involving physical violence, says the report.
Importantly, exposure to violence, especially in childhood, shapes how individuals respond to conflict. Patterns of aggression and victimisation are often reproduced across life, including in seemingly unrelated contexts like driving.
Road rage is part of a continuum of violence, including gender-based violence and community-level aggression
Preventing road rage requires both individual and systemic responses. At an individual level, the most effective strategies are simple: don’t engage. Create distance, avoid stopping in unsafe areas, and prioritise safety over being ‘right’. Recognising early signs of anger and using emotional regulation techniques, such as controlled breathing, can interrupt escalation.
When road rage turns fatal, families are left with profound trauma, complicated grief, and often significant financial strain. Survivors may experience long-term mental health challenges, including anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress.
At a societal level, these incidents reinforce a climate of fear and unpredictability. They contribute to the normalisation of violence as a means of resolving conflict and further erode trust between citizens. They strain already overburdened criminal justice systems and public health services.
Reducing road rage in South Africa requires a broader shift in violence prevention approaches, including strengthening firearm control and promoting responsible ownership practices. Investing in violence-prevention programmes that promote nonviolent norms is essential, along with integrating emotional regulation and conflict management into driver education.
Mental health and violence prevention should be embedded in road safety initiatives. However, the effectiveness of these measures will be limited unless they are part of a comprehensive effort to address violence in society as a whole.
Road rage is part of a continuum of violence that includes gender-based violence, child abuse, and community-level aggression. The same risk factors – stress, inequality, trauma, and the normalisation of violence – cut across these forms.
For safer roads, we must build a less violent society. This means investing in efforts that shift social norms around using violence as a means to resolve conflict. Until then, the road will mirror the tensions we carry and, too often, the violence we have come to accept.
For permission to re-publish ISS Today articles, please email us. In South Africa, News24 has exclusive rights to republish ISS Today articles. In Nigeria, Premium Times has exclusive rights to republish ISS Today articles.
