Attitude towards harmful behaviors Whenever I'm confronted with behaviours I find potentially harmful, I get angry. One example of this is when I witness motorists speeding or otherwise making risky maneuvers (going after the light has turned red, cutting in traffic, etc.) I may be enjoying a nice calm walk in my neighbourhood and be  otherwise feeling quite serene, but then a single passing car happens to accelerate too much (sometimes noisily), and then I start feeling all sorts of feelings of disapproval, powerlessness and contempt.
I feel like I should change my attitude, but I'm not quite sure what I should strive for. Clearly, getting worked up over passing cars accomplishes little. It even hurts me, since I lose focus on what better thoughts I was enjoying before. Afterwards, I'm in an unhappy, vindictive mood for a while. People I love that see me having these types of reactions often look concerned and a bit disturbed. Pretty clearly, getting angry is not the right reaction.
On the other hand, even on a rational level, I'm not sure I want to not get angry, because it seems obvious to me that these drivers are taking unnecessary risks that will invariably lead to more kids getting hit by cars, more car crashes, more noise, environments that feel less safe - harmful things. If I don't react, am I not placing myself and others in harm's way by taking part in an enabling apathy?
Please note - reckless driving here is just an example. I'm hoping to find some insight on how to deal with things that are more or less tolerated by many, either by apathy, ignorance or differences in personal values, but that are for some reason important to me. Other examples that come to mind :

Marketing
Political propaganda
Erosion of private life
The environment
Social justice.

How do Buddhists see disagreements where the opposing party might harm others if they continue in their ways? A &quot;Live and let live&quot; attitude seems problematic, since it contributes to the problem.
If I don't react, am I not placing myself and others in harm's way by taking part in an enabling apathy?
Given that anger is ineffective in that situation, I don't see how non-anger is enabling apathy.
You seem to be keenly aware of the potential dangers of unsafe driving. I presume you act on that, when you're the driver yourself, or when you're a passenger and able to communicate with the driver.
I don't see what good it does to get angry about the behaviour of others over whom you have no control, with whom you have no communication, whose driving you're unable to affect.
How do Buddhists see disagreements where the opposing party might harm others if they continue in their ways?
Doctrine like MN 8 might be relevant:

Others will be harmful; we shall not be harmful here
etc.

The first part of the sutta may imply that what's especially good isn't the, &quot;enjoying a nice calm walk in my neighbourhood and be otherwise feeling quite serene&quot;, but is more especially the decision to refrain from unskilful action -- including anger -- even when others don't.
I feel like I should change my attitude, but I'm not quite sure what I should strive for.
The doctrine of the &quot;Three Poisons&quot; suggests that people feel attracted to what's attractive, repulsed by or angry about what's unattractive, and confused or ignorant about what's neither. Perhaps we're used to thinking about things being Good or Bad, and are nonplussed about what's Not or Neither.
I think that Buddhist doctrine has a lot of &quot;not&quot; or &quot;non-&quot; in it -- for example the opposite of &quot;harmful&quot; isn't only  &quot;beneficial&quot; or &quot;benevolent&quot;, it's also simply &quot;non-harmful&quot; or &quot;harmless&quot;.
Similarly if you feel that anger isn't appropriate, then &quot;what you should change it to&quot; might be, simply, &quot;non-anger&quot;. I like Akkosa Sutta: Insult (SN 7.2) -- it suggests you should refrain from &quot;participating in&quot; or &quot;sharing&quot; or &quot;accepting&quot; the misbehaviour (e.g. somebody's revving their car engine) -- not to violently stamp out that behaviour, but to see it as an attention-getting invitation which you decide to decline.
I think you described already many disadvantages of anger and why it's inappropriate (in the first two paragraphs).
I don't know how much doctrine you know already (since this is the first time you posted here), but I'd like to add two more things.

One is that I'm conscious of &quot;conceit&quot; as being a cause of inter-personal disputes, and try to avoid both (conceit and inter-personal disputes). If I'm tempted to dispute I remind myself that conceit is hard to eradicate (but should be eradicated) -- see here for some explanation of what conceit is:

Māna (Wikipedia)
This answer associates it with comparisons, e.g. &quot;I am better than you&quot; (including &quot;... because I'm selfless and considerate, whereas your actions are potentially harmful&quot;)

I'm not trying to say that there's no difference between skilful and unskilful driving -- but perhaps I'm trying to suggest that getting angry is akin to unskilful driving -- see Chapter 17 of the Dhammapada, which includes


He who checks rising anger as a charioteer checks a rolling chariot, him I call a true charioteer. Others only hold the reins.



This answer suggests that getting angry or getting into disputes -- about what's ethical -- is still getting angry or getting into disputes.