68

Each day, I drive through a heavily wooded area in a nature reservation (in the United States). The roads have many twists, turns and hills, and the speed limit is 25 miles per hour. Cars going much faster are likely to crash. There are few, if any, places to turn off; guardrails, embankments and a foot-wide shoulder make pulling over virtually impossible. There are also no passing zones.

I normally drive at the speed limit or a little bit below (20 mph on the worst sections), because even though I know the area well, it's still not as safe as, say, a nice flat side street. However, over the last week, I've had several cases where a person is tailgating me - typically an SUV roughly two or three feet behind my rear bumper. I seem to have a couple choices:

  • I could go faster, and risk injuring myself and any other vehicles, cyclists or nearby pedestrians. This also means that I'd have less time to stop at wildlife crossings, which are fairly common on these roads. Enough collisions with animals happen already in the area.
  • I could go the same speed, and continue to annoy the driver.
  • I could attempt to pull off at one or two spots, but the other driver is so close that I'm afraid to slow down while I pull off - they could still hit me!

I could, of course, go slower, but that would simply be obnoxious.

At the moment, I use the second option (and I should be clear: I'm not asking for advice on what the best thing to do is). I'd prefer to be safe above all else, and that's the safest solution for everyone involved (although it's not my personal responsibility to decide how fast another vehicle should go). On the other hand, it's always possible that the other vehicle needs to get somewhere for an emergency - and that worries me a bit.

Is it rude for me to stay with the second option? I'd prefer safety above courtesy, of course, but it still bugs me a bit. Having them tailgate me when they want to go faster is also a bit dangerous.

HDE 226868
  • 9,015
  • 9
  • 44
  • 78
  • If you have an answer, please post it below. Comments do not have the features to vet what you say here, and they are not for ongoing conversation. Take it to chat. Thanks. – Robert Cartaino Jul 22 '17 at 13:09
  • I am afraid the answers to this question have a legal bias - while it may (or may not) be true that the legal bias in this instance corresponds to what is polite, we do know not all legal rules are this way. – Harrichael Aug 04 '17 at 13:37
  • How does this involve interpersonal skills? No words can be exchanged between drivers while this is happening. The OP has also identified correctly all possible venues. Therefore, answers will either be based on personal opinion or by citing the relevant safety regulations. In fact, a lot of answers are basically saying the same thing that the OP should maintain their speed. There can be no "new" answer which puts a different spin. And for this reason, I am casting my vote to close the question. –  Sep 24 '17 at 07:53
  • 2
    @Mari-LouA Interpersonal skills are not limited to verbal exchanges - consider all of the questions and answers on the site about nonverbal actions. – HDE 226868 Sep 24 '17 at 19:08

17 Answers17

80

While I am from the UK, I feel my answer can apply here too.

In the Theory Test aspect of getting a UK driving licence, one of the potential questions is this exact scenario. The correct answer is to always remain calm and continue driving safely. When on the roads you should never feel intimidated to drive faster, always drive at safe speeds. The driver behind you shouldn't even be feeling annoyed, driving when irritable or annoyed is something to avoid. In terms of safety if you yourself are behind a car, and he's right behind you, make sure to leave more of a gap between you and the car infront, so that if they slam on the breaks, you don't get crashed into by the 4x4.

Given that you are doing the best option there is (and the legally correct one) then you shouldn't be feeling as though you're being rude; you're simply driving along a road in a safe manner. If it helps, here's a definition of a speed limit (taken from the UK government website, bolding mine):

The speed limit is the absolute maximum - it doesn’t mean it’s safe to drive at this speed in all conditions.

Crafter0800
  • 7,008
  • 2
  • 37
  • 68
  • 2
    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been [moved to chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/62639/discussion-on-answer-by-crafter0800-is-it-rude-to-drive-at-the-speed-limit-on-da). – Robert Cartaino Jul 22 '17 at 13:12
  • 2
    I would suggest removing the legal advice: "(and the legally correct one)". While it *might* be true that what the OP is doing is legal in your jurisdiction, I doubt you have sufficient information to make that assertion categorically. Further, I *know* that under some circumstances, in some US jurisdictions, not pulling over to allow cars to pass (when safe to do so) *is just as illegal* as other traffic violations (e.g. speeding), even when you are going at or above the speed limit. – Makyen Jul 23 '17 at 18:53
  • 1
    This answer does not cover the subject fully. The U.K. equivalent to the question would be driving down a winding single-track B road with next to no passing places, or a two-lane single-carriageway road with solid white centre lines. The U.K. actually shares what U.S. commentators have been talking about. Rule 169 of the Highway Code tells drivers (especially of large or slow moving vehicles, but _not solely_) to pull in and let queued up traffic pass them. There is more than just the law on speed limits here. The Highway Code doesn't constrain Rule 169 to just some classes of roads, note. – JdeBP Jul 23 '17 at 22:00
  • @Makyen Source? Just curious more than anything. I wonder if that's true over here in Australia... – Clonkex Jul 24 '17 at 05:19
  • 3
    @Clonkex, [California vehicle code 21656](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&sectionNum=21656.) requires, on a 2 lane road, pulling over to let cars pass if you're going slower than "the normal speed of traffic" & followed by >=5 vehicles. Here, "normal speed of traffic" is the speed the other cars desire to go, even if above the speed limit. There is also [22400](http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&sectionNum=22400.), but that has "safe operation" and legal qualifications (i.e. at the speed limit is OK). – Makyen Jul 24 '17 at 05:40
  • To be clear: IANAL. Laws are different *everywhere*. Unless you specialize in knowing the law (and most experts would say they want to research any subject before giving an opinion), it's unlikely for a layperson to A) actually know all the relevant laws in their own jurisdiction and how they interact; and B) have anything close to comprehensive knowledge as to the laws in some other jurisdiction (let alone something approximating worldwide). I'm just trying to get across that we should avoid things that appear to be rendering an opinion about a legal situation. – Makyen Jul 24 '17 at 05:55
  • 1
    Comments are not for extended chat, if you want to discuss this further please use the link to the chat provided above. – Crafter0800 Jul 24 '17 at 08:29
  • Let off the gas and let the car naturally loose speed, then accelerate back up to your comfortable speed. Repeat until they understand and start driving at a reasonable distance behind you. Works every time for me – user1886419 Mar 27 '18 at 05:08
  • In the US, speeds are often (usually) set by politics, which have little to do with the safest speed. Simply put, the safest speed (the one that causes the fewest accidents) is about the median speed for other cars on the road. As others have pointed out, every state in the US requires that if you are driving on a multi-lane road, you must move to the right if you are driving slower than other cars in that lane. If the speed _you_ feel is safe is less than most other cars, drive in the rightmost lane. – A. P. Damien May 03 '18 at 06:09
  • Refusing to pull over is never polite. Especially in the US, it can lead to road rage and you being forced off the road or shot. Don't do it. – A. P. Damien May 03 '18 at 06:10
51

It is never rude to drive the speed limit
Despite how the tailgater may feel about it, the speed limit is an upper bound on the legal speed for the road. While we all speed from time to time, we shouldn't complain about being forced to follow a law that's often ignored. Tailgating itself is both rude and illegal.

In the driver's education and defensive driving courses I've taken, the recommended reaction to tailgaters is to slow down by easing off the gas (but not hitting the brakes). This does several things:

  1. It reduces the energy in the situation. All else being equal, a collision at 15 mph is better than one at 25mph.
  2. It encourages the tailgater to pass you.
  3. It gives you more time to react smoothly to conditions ahead.

They will hate this. They will get over it.

You're right that hitting the brakes is risky, as the tailgater may fail to react (and hit you) or overreact (locking up their brakes or steering off the road).

Speeding up is the worst thing you can do. It puts you at a speed you're not comfortable with, raises the energy in the situation, and is unlikely to actually dislodge the tailgater.

Carl Kevinson
  • 793
  • 4
  • 7
  • 5
    Carl's advice is good on a road with only one lane in each direction. On a road with multiple lanes, don't speed up, but _do_ move over. It's the polite thing to do. It's the _legal_ thing to do in the US. You are not a traffic cop. It is not your job to enforce the speed limit. – A. P. Damien May 03 '18 at 06:11
28

Not sure about driving etiquette and driving language (like blinking passenger-side turn once or twice to say "it's safe to overtake" or driver-side turn to say "don't overtake") in your country, but it seems to me that under no circumstances following the rules can be rude. Driving rules are mostly written in blood, and that is a strong reason to follow them.

In Russia you can touch brake (push it just a bit so that stop lights are on, but there is no actual braking) twice (make a stop-light blink) to tell the other driver that you won't go faster and you feel he is too close. Not sure if it's a common signal in your country, but you could still try and hope that she gets the message.

Alissa
  • 426
  • 3
  • 9
  • 7
    This is also a common signal in the US. Unfortunately the drivers who want to go faster will frequently either ignore the signal or even express their displeasure by moving even closer or start blinking their headlights. – doneal24 Jul 19 '17 at 17:07
  • 5
    I've actually never heard of this signal (I live in the US), but it seems reasonable. As @DougO'Neal says though, the other driver will probably just get more annoyed. But, that's not your problem, as the only person practicing safe driving habits in the scenario. – Kristen Hammack Jul 19 '17 at 18:32
  • @DougO'Neal I've never heard of this signal either and I also live in the U.S. I don't recall having ever seen anyone use it. Maybe it's a region-specific thing? – reirab Jul 20 '17 at 19:06
  • 2
    This is a good suggestion; I'm going to try it the next few times I get a chance. Thanks for the advice, as well as the phrase "Driving rules are mostly written in blood". I'm not sure how well it's applicable here, but it very well might be. – HDE 226868 Jul 20 '17 at 21:22
  • In nearly all parts of the US, on nearly all roads, the prevailing speed of traffic is above the posted speed limit, often significantly above it. (This often surprises international visitors.) Dangerous twisty roads, like the one the OP describes, are (usually) a rare exception to this practice. – arp Jul 21 '17 at 19:12
  • @arp US is not alone in this. I used to think that in Russia it is mostly because of bad usage of signs (e.g. there are lots of roads with no buildings around, two or more lines each direction, safety things in the middle and around, etc... But you are still in a "city" and limit is 60kph =~37mph) – Alissa Jul 22 '17 at 01:09
  • 2
    Please edit this answer to use "offside" and "nearside" (that's the side nearest the centre-line and the side nearest the kerb, respectively) for the indicator directions instead of "right" and "left". I *suspect* this answer is written from the perspective of someone who normally drives on the right, but not everyone does. – Andrew Leach Jul 22 '17 at 14:01
  • "This is also a common signal in the US. Unfortunately the drivers who want to go faster will frequently either ignore the signal or even express their displeasure by moving even closer **or start blinking their headlights.**" - *That's* rude if anything is. Not seriously: Don't let such people pass you anywhere but right before a speed camera. Seriously: Just drive safely. – Oskar Skog Jul 23 '17 at 10:33
  • 3
    @AndrewLeach I disagree about using "offside" and "nearside"; that makes no sense to me (I'd have no idea which sides you mean). I'd use driver's side and passenger's side. Your second sentence also makes no sense. This answer says _blinking right turn once or twice to say "it's safe to overtake"_. That means it's written from the perspective of someone who normally drives on the left (i.e. right-hand-drive). – Clonkex Jul 24 '17 at 05:17
  • @Clonkex That's exactly why "right" and "left" make no sense. Usually (at least where I've seen the reprehensible practice) the driver indicates inwards towards the kerb (similar to parking) to show they are allowing overtaking, and outwards towards the centre of the road (similar to overtaking) to stop someone overtaking them. Blinking right to show it's safe must mean the driver is driving on the right (left-hand-drive). – Andrew Leach Jul 24 '17 at 07:11
  • @AndrewLeach I strongly agree, "right" and "left" make no sense... but since _when_ do you indicate passenger-side to tell the person behind to overtake?? That's ridiculous. No one would understand that in Australia. You _always_ indicate towards the middle of the road to tell someone they should overtake over here. That said, if it's the opposite where you live it opens up the possibility that the poster of this answer drives on the right (i.e. left-hand-drive). – Clonkex Jul 24 '17 at 09:03
  • 1
    @Clonkex then drivers language indeed differs from country to country. In Russia we blink passenger-side, cause it's like "I won't start turning left or overtaking someone else. I'll shift a bit right to help you". That's why I started the answer with indicating uncertainty in the "language" and differences between driving cultures. – Alissa Jul 24 '17 at 10:00
  • @Alissa Interesting. That seems totally weird to me. In Australia we use the indicator as if we were waving out the driver's side of the car, kind of saying "go around me, it's clear". Another interesting point you make is _written in blood_. I've seen a tonne of car crash compilations (randomly, I didn't go looking for them) and the vast majority of them are assembled from Russian dashcams. Obviously there'd be other factors at play (maybe Russians use dashcams more often) but it seems like Russian drivers are, generally speaking, terrifying. What's the driving culture like over there? – Clonkex Jul 24 '17 at 11:55
  • We use dashcams very often. Almost everyone. Because there are people who would do something totally stupid and if you bump into them they will try to say they did everything ok. And the only way to proof you aren't guilty is to have a record of the incident. As for driving culture, it depends very much on the area. In where I live, south part of the city drives worse than northern (no idea why). And in a satellite-city in just 10km, drivers are totally calm and nice. – Alissa Jul 24 '17 at 12:48
  • 1
    @AndrewLeach This question is about the United States. Traffic is on the right in all parts of the United States and, furthermore, the terms "offside" and "nearside" aren't used here, so their use would actually make the answer less useful than left/right. – reirab Jul 24 '17 at 19:42
25

If someone is driving unsafely close to your vehicle the safest option for you is to slow down. By driving so close to your vehicle that they are unable to brake in response to emergency actions you may be forced to take they place you, as well as themselves, in danger.

There may be later opportunities for you to allow them to pass which you can use, but when someone is behaving rudely and dangerously by tailgating you, you should not feel any great obligation to help them out by inconveniencing yourself for their benefit and you are certainly under no obligation to endanger yourself and others to assist them in driving faster.

Jack Aidley
  • 1,785
  • 7
  • 9
  • 10
    +1 to slowing down. I was always taught that you should leave a sensible gap. If someone wants to tailgate me, I'll slow down to a speed where they're not an unsafe distance behind. If that means 5mph, then so be it – Valorum Jul 20 '17 at 07:25
  • 4
    I agree. Some people may think this is just a "f*** you" to the driver behind for driving aggressively, but that's just a plus! If an aggressive driver is behind me in a way that I don't feel I can safely respond to an emergency, the _only_ safe option is to gradually slow. – Samthere Jul 20 '17 at 11:15
  • 2
    -1 to slowing down. This is not a safe option. You will be inciting the tailgater's hatred and will be constantly distracted by it. It may also cause them to do something stupid, which puts you at risk. Pulling over is the safest option, and is usually the law as well. – B T Jul 20 '17 at 19:04
  • 7
    @BT - Ignoring the fact that the law wholly favours slowing down, if the driver behind is at an unsafe distance, it's incumbent on you (for your own safety) to make that distance safe again. – Valorum Jul 20 '17 at 22:27
  • 6
    Slowing down is appropriate because the driver behind you is following too close for the speed, AND because he is adding a hazard by driving too close while you were going the speed your felt safe at, AND because it means you will be going slow enough to pull over. If that makes him angry (as @BT suggested), that's on the crazy driver and his reckless behavior, not on you, and all the more reason to go at a safe speed for THAT situation. – Dronz Jul 21 '17 at 05:15
  • 1
    @Dronz What makes you think slowing down will make the person behind you increase their headway (following time)? I don't think they will. And you clearly don't know how accidents happen. "Safe" drivers get in accidents all the time because they put themselves near unsafe drivers. You're advocating that people put themselves in an unsafe position by aggravating an already upset driver. That's not someone you want to be driving *even closer* to. Use your head dude. – B T Jul 21 '17 at 06:20
  • 3
    @BT. You're speculating that slowing down will aggravate the rear driver and cause an "unsafe" situation, but it is just speculation. It could happen, but as has been stated, *both drivers are already in an unsafe situation* caused by insufficient distance between their vehicles for the speed at which they are travelling. OP has already said there are no places to safely pull over. The very small chance of getting _into_ a different "unsafe" situation shouldn't prevent the front driver from attempting to _remove themselves from the unsafe situation that they are currently in_. – tw39124 Jul 21 '17 at 07:57
  • 1
    @BT: As the question makes clear the driver is not in a position to pull over safely and let them pass, thus the point is moot. – Jack Aidley Jul 21 '17 at 09:03
  • 5
    @BT It's not that slowing down will necessarily make them increase their distance, but it will decrease the dangerousness of following too close. Also, in my experience in this situation, slowing down sometimes does get a tailgater who can't go around to relent. It's not to aggravate the driver behind, but to have the driver in front drive how he feels comfortable for the conditions. If that drives the driver behind into an enraged frenzy, the hothead needs to cool down and back off. – Dronz Jul 21 '17 at 15:22
  • 1
    In Germany, the correct distance is speed in km/h, divided by 2, as meters. For example 100 km/h (about 61 mph) = 50 metres distance. Illegal distance (you can be fined) is half of that. 3 feet as the OP says is illegal if you drive over 3.6 km/h or about 2 1/4 mph. That's a very slow walking speed. – gnasher729 Jul 21 '17 at 23:00
  • As with many other answers here, you're kinda dancing around the actual question - which is a question of *etiquette*, not safety or legality. You touch on this in passing, but please revise this answer to fully address the concern the asker raised, rather than focusing primarily on the safety concerns (which the asker already made clear they're fully aware of). – Shog9 Jul 22 '17 at 15:30
  • @gnasher729 - that's too complex. In U.K. ROSPA recommends a gap of two seconds - that's at any speed. Simple and effective. – Tim Jul 24 '17 at 10:02
  • @Shog9 Etiquette have to take the backseat when law and safety dictate otherwise (within reason). The tailgater is the rude one here and needs to relent - if they are aggravated, they would be better off taking a taxi from now on. However, even etiquette could indicate not giving in to bullies.. – Chieron Aug 09 '17 at 22:52
  • The leather conditioner you use on your seats should also be considered less important than safe driving, @Chieron. None the less, if you ask for assistance conditioning your seat leather on a forum dedicated to automotive leather-conditioning, you should probably expect leather-conditioning advice and not a lecture on how to drive. The asker is here because he is concerned with etiquette; if he wishes to be schooled in the finer points of safe driving - or leather conditioning, for that matter - there are many other fine sites available to him. – Shog9 Aug 09 '17 at 23:12
  • 1
    @Shog9 with leather conditioner, safety is unlikely to become an issue restricting options and thus can be mostly ignored. However, all courses of action etiquette might promote must still adhere to the restrictions set by law and safety concerns. It is pointless to ask for the politeness value of a forbidden action. – Chieron Aug 09 '17 at 23:23
14

It is most definitely NOT rude to drive the speed limit in the situation you've described. However, it's not really a question of rudeness or not, it's a question of the law. You are obeying the law, the other driver, by tailgating or creating an unsafe driving condition, is not. If they don't like the speed limit they can take that up with their political representatives. Additionally, to say that the other driver, by putting your life and the lives of others who are using the road, was behaving rudely would be a gross understatement.

That said, you may want to protect yourself and your passengers by letting them pass if it is safe to do so. If you can safely pull off the road you may want to consider doing that. Otherwise you should do all you can to drive at a speed that is within the legal limit and at which you feel safe driving.

flyingace
  • 249
  • 1
  • 3
  • 6
    In some (most? all?) places, the law **requires** you to pull over and let them pass at the next safe opportunity (at least if there are > N cars piled behind you). That's also definitely the polite thing. Passing up opportunities to let other drivers pass is extremely rude. – Kevin Jul 20 '17 at 18:28
  • 2
    @Kevin Does such a law apply if you are already going the speed limit? And if there are neither opportunities to pull over nor passing zones? On potentially dangerous roads in nature reserves when there's a single driver potentially illegally tailgating you? – Euchris Jul 20 '17 at 19:02
  • 2
    Yes, at least in CA it explicitly applies even if you're going the speed limit (or higher). And as I said, the next *safe* opportunity. – Kevin Jul 20 '17 at 19:03
  • 2
    @Kevin do you have a link describing this law and its details? I've tried searching and not found anything. – Elle H Jul 20 '17 at 19:43
  • 3
    @Zurahn The relevant law is [here](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&sectionNum=21656.). It applies only to highways, but it does indeed apply regardless of speed limit if your speed is "less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time" if there are 5 or more vehicles lined up behind you. – reirab Jul 20 '17 at 20:02
  • @reirab Thanks! It's good to see the exact wording. – Elle H Jul 20 '17 at 21:07
  • 1
    Viewing that California statute, I am compelled to ask for the official definition of "normal." – WGroleau Jul 23 '17 at 06:04
14

It's never unsafe to pull over (where there's space), and any speed demon would sigh in relief at the sign of a right turn signal (or left if you're in one of those wrong-side countries ; ) with slowing down to pull off. If someone else wants to go much faster than you, please pull off for them. Its much safer for them and for you, and in lots of places its actually the law.

As far as social harmony is concerned, intentionally going slower is the worst option. It makes you the Ahole. Refusing to pull over also doesn't score you any social points. So if you take longer than something like 4 or 5 minutes to recognize you're blocking traffic and pull over, you're either being unaware of yourself (which isn't good in any situation, social or not) or you're simply being rude. That said, you shouldn't feel forced to go faster than you're comfortable with. But its not acceptable to have a drivers license and yet still feel unconfortable pulling over for someone. They won't hit you if they want to get where they're going.

B T
  • 238
  • 1
  • 5
  • 1
    Agreed on the turn signal - that's one of the few methods of communication between drivers, and is essential for a situation like this. – mskfisher Jul 20 '17 at 15:59
  • 6
    You seem to have missed the part of the question where it says there is nowhere to pull over. – Catija Jul 20 '17 at 19:13
  • 2
    @Catija Maybe you missed the part where he contradicted that saying there were "one or two spots" he "could attempt to pull off at". Roads are usually required to be built with these kinds of safe places to pull of. – B T Jul 20 '17 at 19:24
  • 3
    But that's not what your answer says. Your answer is accusing him of being rude because he feels unsafe and won't pull off immediately. Someone only two feet off your bumper is extremely unsafe and slowing down may only be worse. – Catija Jul 20 '17 at 19:26
  • 3
    @Catija I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I'm answering his question in a general sense. No matter how close they are to your bumper, you can put your blinker on and pull over. I'm gonna guess that 99.99% of tailgaters restrain themselves until the person in front has passed up good pull of points. And they will definitely cooperate with you if they see you're trying to let them pass – B T Jul 20 '17 at 19:28
  • 1
    We're not here to answer a general question about pulling over. We're here to answer *this* specific question. It may take 5-6 minutes to get to said place where it's even safe to pull over at all. – Catija Jul 20 '17 at 19:31
  • 1
    As I've stated, there are few places to pull over at. As @Catija, this doesn't really work in my case (although if it *was* possible, this would certainly be the best suggestion, as others have pointed out). – HDE 226868 Jul 20 '17 at 21:25
  • 2
    A few additional points: There's no such thing as a road that isn't dangerous. It's impossible to perfectly drive the speed limit. So no one is entitled to not be passed. It's rude to block those that would because you think you know best. Enforcing the speed limit is not your job and in some cases illegal. Speeding up only because the one behind you is intimidating is just cowardly. You should be considerate of everyone. You're entitled to drive as slow as you like. Just share the road kindly. Slowing down and pulling over is the safest response. – candied_orange Jul 21 '17 at 14:18
  • Slowing down when the idiot behind you is making the current speed unsafe is NOT rude, it's sensible. – WGroleau Jul 23 '17 at 06:07
  • Pff, wrong-side countries, who are you to talk? You're the ones always getting in the passenger's seat to drive... :P – Clonkex Jul 24 '17 at 09:12
  • This is normally the best answer, but at 60mph finding a place to pull over isn't always easy. – Joshua Oct 26 '17 at 18:04
12

Consider it this way: driving on the road is an inherently selfish act. You are not helping anyone else by doing so, and as you mention you are causing other drivers some inconvenience by driving more slowly than they want to drive. When these drivers look at you, they will probably think "This person should not be driving, doing so is an inconvenience to me and other people like me" and by that logic, they will consider your actions rude.

However, there are a few more things to consider:

  • You can think the same thing about them. They are inconveniencing you by tailgating, they should not be driving if they are endangering other drivers.

  • For every human in the world save one, there is another human that will driver faster than that human on this road. You are perhaps at the low end of the spectrum, but everyone should have experienced a time when they were in your position. They should be able to empathize with your situation.

So the people who tailgate you might consider you to be rude, but because of these two points they will themselves be rude people incapable of empathy. You should use this information to judge whether or not your rudeness is worth worrying about.

Plus, consider the alternatives: it's rude to murder pedestrians, and it's rude to break someone's car. Compared to these, continuing to drive at a safe speed is the least of three evils.

DaaaahWhoosh
  • 1,453
  • 1
  • 9
  • 15
6

In answer to the original question of whether it's rude to go the speed limit when someone behind you wants to go faster: It depends. If you're going slower than you need to in order to hold someone up, then yes that is rude. If you are going as fast as you feel is acceptably safe for the combination of road, driver, and vehicle, then no it isn't rude. I've been on both sides of this question, since I generally like to drive fast, but I've been the owner of some very slow vehicles that would not physically do the speed limit in certain circumstances. I think it's certainly nice to give someone a passing opportunity when and where you feel safe doing so, but it isn't generally a requirement. I say generally because there are a few legal situations requiring slow vehicles to use turnouts (where provided), or to vacate the left lane (where applicable).

That being said, I would venture to guess that it would be possible to go a lot, lot, lot faster than the speed limit on the road described, provided the vehicle and the driver's skill level are up to it. I recommend to everyone who hasn't done it to get some track time in order to develop their skills.

RobertinNV
  • 61
  • 2
5

I think on a slow, windy, two lane road, your approach is acceptable. It would be a courtesy to pull off if there is a large pull off spot (and you can turn on your blinker well in advance to let the person behind you know you are doing so to avoid a read end collision), but it is not necessarily required. Your safety is the most important thing.

That said, if you are on road with multiple lanes traveling in the same direction, continuous driving in the left lane (speed limit or not) is not acceptable. The left lane is for passing and in various states you can even get pulled over for driving in the left lane when you aren't passing somebody. Also, it is in fact somewhat rude and you are likely to annoy people. Furthermore, "Slower Traffic Keep Right" is a street sign you will see on many roads that have multiple lanes travelling in the same direction, so stay to the right if you want to travel at a slower pace.

MikeS
  • 151
  • 4
  • 4
    You honestly believe that the government created a lane just for people breaking the law? The overtaking lane is for people who are going at the speed limit, who are overtaking people going less than the speed limit. It is not for people who are going over the speed limit to overtake people driving the speed limit. – Scott Jul 20 '17 at 01:02
  • 6
    @Scott Even if that's true, just sitting in the passing lane if you are not passing anyone, even if you are going the speed limit, is dangerous and often illegal in the US. It's often called "lollygagging". The passing lane is for passing, not driving. – Catija Jul 20 '17 at 04:19
  • @Catija - MikeS stated that going in the left lane at the speed limit to overtake someone going below the speed limit is not acceptable. "going the speed limit in the left lane is not acceptable." In no way was I advocating for the use of the overtaking lane for anything other than overtaking. – Scott Jul 20 '17 at 04:52
  • 5
    @Scott The speed doesn't matter. The law states one must keep to the right. Occupying the left lane where the right lane is empty violates that law. If I'm in the right lane and someone is speeding in the left lane, that is usually not my immediate problem. – gerrit Jul 20 '17 at 11:18
  • @gerrit read my answer to catija. It answers your comment as well – Scott Jul 20 '17 at 11:22
  • 2
    I have edited my answer as the message I was trying to convey is "left lane is for passing", not "left lane is for speeding". However, if you are driving in the left lane and your mindset is, "I'm already going the speed limit so there is no need for people to pass me, so I'll continue to drive here for the duration of my trip", that is the wrong attitude, against the law in many places, and not the purpose of the left lane. – MikeS Jul 20 '17 at 19:18
  • I'll just clear up that yes, there is only one lane going in each direction. Thank you for the addendum in the case where there are two. – HDE 226868 Jul 20 '17 at 21:26
5

  1. I don't think it is rude to drive safely.

  2. Other answers have suggested that it is never rude to drive at the posted speed limit. That may be true in some (possibly mythical) place where the speed limit is actually set in accordance with the Institute of Traffic Engineers guidelines -- at the 85th percentile of measured speed. See http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Establishing_Realistic_Speedlimits_85625_7.pdf as an example. Unfortunately, many places set speed limits based on some arbitrary rule (25MPH on all residential streets, for example) or on complaints by residents that people are driving "too fast".

  3. Therefore, the posted speed limit may be "too slow" (below the 85th percentile) and thereby actually cause more accidents or more severe accidents (the damage done to people and property is proportional (roughly) to the 4th power of the difference in speed between the two objects that collide. (See the equation for "elastic collistion" in Wikipedia and plug in some actual numbers.)

So what's the polite thing to do? If there's more than one driving lane, move to the right until your speed matches that of other vehicles in that lane, or into the rightmost driving lane if you are going slower than everybody else. If there's only one driving lane, drive at the speed you consider safe, but pull over when it is safe.

Now, having a tailgater can make pulling over risky -- will he be able to stop in time when you're about to? If you know about the turnout in advance, signal, then gradually slow down as you approach it so that you're going slow enough to pull over when you get there. If you come on one suddenly and the vehicle behind is too close to stop safely, just go on past and wait for another opportunity. After all, it's his fault that he's too close.

A. P. Damien
  • 151
  • 2
  • The Michigan doc was quite interesting especially the graph on page 15 showing that driving too slow for conditions (below 85th percentile) is MORE likely to get one into an accident than driving the same amount too fast. OTOH, I imagine many of those are from being suddenly overtaken, and once the driver behind is merely tailgating (didn't slam into you before even seeing you), the risk goes down dramatically. – Taryn Jul 19 '17 at 23:07
  • +1, but even in such a mythical place, it's still rude (and dangerous and usually illegal) to drive the speed limit in the fast lane on a multi-lane road if there's traffic behind you and you're not actively passing someone. – reirab Jul 20 '17 at 19:32
  • 2
    I disagree that speed limits are arbitrary. In the UK, residential speed limits are set at 30mph. Hitting a child at 30mph gives them an 80% chance of survival. At 40 it’s just 20% chance. Sometimes it’s 20 - that’s to help traffic flow. Motorways are faster because you don’t get kids running about, and slower to (again) improve traffic flow. – Tim Jul 21 '17 at 00:21
  • You don't get to decide if speed limits are "too slow". – A. McDaniel Sep 12 '17 at 20:24
5

Option 4, signal to your right, and wave them around you. This signifies your intent to let them pass in a manner that allows you two to coordinate. He moves to the other side, you slow down so he can pass without you needing to worry about him rear ending you any more, and he's gone.

Passerby
  • 1,203
  • 6
  • 18
5

To answer this, you have to start with understanding what is and isn't rude behavior in general, then understand how it relates to driving. Certainly, intentionally and unnecessarily impeding others is rude. It's also arguably rude for you to not do your best to avoid impeding others when you can do so reasonably and without undue burden.

So how does this apply to driving? In the case you describe, you are faced with a tailgater who wishes to pass you, however driving conditions do not give you a safe way to do this. Since it puts undue burden on you (risking your own safety for their convenience) it would not be rude. You should not slow down to "punish" them, as this would be rude since you are intentionally impeding them, however if you feel you must slow down for safety reasons because of their tailgating, this would not be rude.

Similarly, some people have mentioned situations where a driver isn't getting out of the left hand lane and is holding up traffic. If they aren't passing, then it is not an undue hardship for them to get out of the way to allow other traffic to pass as long as they can do so safely, so blocking traffic when you could easily and safely get out of the way would be rude.

It should be highlighted that while obstructing faster moving traffic when you have no safe or easy way to avoid it is not rude, that does not mean it is not frustrating. Rude and frustrating are not the same thing. If I am stuck behind slow moving traffic on a country road that my car could handle much faster, I'll be frustrated, but I won't be upset at the other drivers, because they aren't intending to hold me up.

If, on the other hand, they had cut me off to get in front of me and then proceeded to go slowly, I would be annoyed at them because they needlessly impeded me by forcing their way in front and then going slow.

If you don't want to rude when driving, do your best to avoid impeding others, but don't feel like you need to compromise your personal feeling of safety for someone else's convenience. There's no guarantee that they won't misconstrue your actions, but if they have a problem with you placing your safety over their convenience, they are the one being rude.

AJ Henderson
  • 171
  • 4
4

It's certainly not rude to properly follow the law. Even without the speed limit, if you don't feel safe driving particularly fast, always stick to whatever speed you feel safe with!

That being said, there are, of course, lower limits of what is a reasonable speed. On some roads those are even enforced by law, on others it's just common sense, e.g. to not drive in walking speed on a normal road under normal everyday circumstances.

So, in your case, you are totally doing the right thing, legally and morally.

Still, if you feel generous and it is no issue for you, you can always decide to be extra nice by assuming someone behind you has good reasons for being in a hurry and let them pass when there is a good opportunity by briefly pulling over. The closer you are to the speed limit the more this is a total courtesy - the slower (and further away from the limit) you are, the more it is something one might expect from you or law might even require. For instance, in some European countries it is expected that slow trucks/tractors on a single lane road pull over once in a while to let faster traffic pass.

Frank Hopkins
  • 581
  • 3
  • 8
  • 3
    Often, the law requires slow drivers to pull over for faster drivers. So it is *not* simply "generous" to pull over, its the socially appropriate thing to do *and* its often the law. The speed limit has nothing to do with your requirement (socially and legally) to pull over for faster drivers. – B T Jul 20 '17 at 18:55
  • 1
    @BT If you are overspeeding, i.e. going over the speed limit, then no, the socially appropriate thing is not to get out of your way. You're already in the wrong for wanting to drive faster than legal. With that attitude, I'd be happy to let you pass, but only right in front of that corner where the speed camera is. (And I'm not even saying speed limits need to be 100% enforced). Oh, but I'd be interested in those laws. – Frank Hopkins Jul 20 '17 at 19:01
  • @BT In some states, it does affect your legal requirement to pull over on single-lane roads, though you're right that it doesn't affect the requirement to drive in the rightmost lane on multi-lane roads in most states. – reirab Jul 20 '17 at 19:11
  • 1
    @Darkwing The law is different for single-lane vs. multi-lane roads. On multi-lane roads, nearly every U.S. state does indeed have a requirement to not block the left lane, even if you're going the speed limit. The exact details vary by state, but the general idea of slower traffic must keep right is the same. [There's a list of such laws here](http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/right.html). Requirements for actually pulling over on single-lane roads are different, though, and vary more by state. – reirab Jul 20 '17 at 19:13
  • 4
    @Darkwing The U.S. may be different from what you're used to in that the average flow of traffic is actually a bit faster than the speed limit in most places, though whether that's true and the degree to which traffic exceeds the speed limit varies by region. Where I live, normal highway traffic averages 2-5 mph above the speed limit. On I-75 in downtown Atlanta, it's more like 30 mph above the speed limit and driving the speed limit would be very, **very** unsafe, let alone doing so in the left lanes. – reirab Jul 20 '17 at 19:16
  • @reirab For multi-lane roads I'd totally agree - the requirement to make room on the left lane is even stronger on some roads in Europe where you have to drive on the right unless you are overtaking (whereas in the US it's AFAIK fair game to drive on the left without traffic on the right or without overtaking that traffic). We're talking single lane tough. – Frank Hopkins Jul 20 '17 at 19:25
  • @reirab And it's also not about blocking the guy behind - if he is in such a hurry, feels like taking risk and ignoring laws, he's free to overtake using the opposite lane (assuming there is one, OP didn't indicate this was a one way road). It's also according to OP a somewhat dangerous forest road, so your highway/interstate examples are probably off-topic. Still, it seems you need to get your driver behaviour in line with your laws or the other way around ;) – Frank Hopkins Jul 20 '17 at 19:33
  • @Darkwing I was mostly responding to your statement that "If you are overspeeding, i.e. going over the speed limit, then no, the socially appropriate thing is not to get out of your way." That is certainly not true on multi-lane roads and it's often not true on single-lane ones (though it's not as egregious of an offense as in the multi-lane case.) – reirab Jul 20 '17 at 19:55
  • @reirab I'd really find a law weird that requires you to pull over to let someone pass in a one lane road when you are driving at about the speed limit. Even if it's okay in the US to go a few miles beyond the limit (which incidentally it practically is as well in Europe, you shouldn't but typically no speed camera will register, no ticket being issued if you're just a few kmh above - unless its a walking speed area). And there are a few comments above at other answers from Americans who seem to agree keep driving at that speed is the way to go, see for instance rpmerf at the top-most answer. – Frank Hopkins Jul 20 '17 at 20:06
  • @reirab if you actually have such laws then there's indeed a locality component to this question. – Frank Hopkins Jul 20 '17 at 20:10
  • 3
    @Darkwing [Here's the one for California](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&sectionNum=21656.), for example. Note that the conditions are that you're driving "less than the normal speed of traffic" with at least 5 vehicles lined up behind you, not "less than the speed limit." If other traffic is driving faster than the speed limit, you're still required to pull over and let them pass. And, law or no law, it's the polite thing to do in every state. – reirab Jul 20 '17 at 20:22
  • @reirab Interesting. I'd still argue that the intent of the law was to cover cases of significant speed difference, like trucks vs. cars, and it's arguable what the "normal speed of traffic" is (as I read this as in addition to the 5 cars behind), yet, the way it's written the tailgater may have a point, at least if he brings four friends ;) Maybe you should place your own answer from a US point of view to see if others agree with your general social interpretation. – Frank Hopkins Jul 20 '17 at 20:32
3

It certainly isn't rude in the context you provided. Tailgating on the other hand is both rude and dangerous, but that ground has already been heavily covered by other answers.

I just wanted to point out a related experiment from Atlanta in 2007:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1588989/posts

https://youtu.be/1B-Ox0ZmVIU

Basically a group of college students took 4 cars and lined them up across all four lanes of Atlanta's infamous​ I-285 and drove at the posted speed limit of 55mph for 30 minutes. The result was gridlock and bedlam. The students filmed it and won a prize for best comedic short and made a rather pointed statement about civil obedience

To address the broader speed limit issue...

My dad was a firefighter for a lot of years. His theory on the speed limit was that it's generally posted well below the speed that authorities expect people to actually drive at. More or less they post 25 in order to hopefully keep people under 40, 70 to keep people under 90. They know that people will habitually drive 5-10 over the limit, under normal circumstances, and much faster when they're in a hurry, so they account for that...

It isn't rude to obey the rules, but when possible try to cut other drivers a break and let them pass. It's​ more about making a safer, lower stress drive for everyone than about the actual rules.

apaul
  • 54,577
  • 27
  • 182
  • 248
  • 4
    This is just utterly wrong. City streets have maximum speed limits of 25/35 mph depending on the type of street because that relates to how fast a car can be moving and a pedestrian be likely to survive being hit. Please don't encourage people to drive 40 in a 25. The chance of dying goes from 15% to 50%. Drive the speed limit, particularly on neighborhood streets. – Catija Jul 20 '17 at 04:24
  • @Catija I didn't mean to encourage people to do anything dangerous, just stating an uncomfortable reality. Speed limits are often set with a worst case senario in mind, usually an 18 wheeler, a heavy truck with a trailer in tow. Drive the speed limit on any major road and count the number of vehicles that pass and you'll see what I'm talking about. – apaul Jul 20 '17 at 05:30
  • 2
    For a while I went thru a phase where I only dated cops daughter's. Two of them have separately told me that they will not pull someone over unless they're going at least 15 over. My drivers ed class also taught that it's ok to go 5 over if that's what the rest of traffic is doing. – I wrestled a bear once. Jul 20 '17 at 16:58
  • @Catija - it's true. Typically the principle in use is the "85th percentile" to define speed limits. This site has an explanation: https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2015/08/21/the-85th-percentile-as-a-tool-for-improving-roads-and-streets/ – Rory Alsop Jul 20 '17 at 18:00
  • 1
    I'll agree that driving at the posted speed limit on the highway is not a good idea - I've experienced that firsthand from multiple viewpoints. I'm not sure how well that transfers over to the windy roads in my case. – HDE 226868 Jul 20 '17 at 21:27
  • @HDE 226868 The specific instance seemed to have been covered at great length, over and over again, in other answers, so I tried to speak to that and the broader issue. – apaul Jul 20 '17 at 21:31
3

It is rude to drive anything other than the safe speed, taking into account the road conditions, weather, your familiarity with the road, and the behaviour of other road users.

If someone is tailgating you, that is an unsafe driving condition. You should react to this by slowing down further. This will mean that the person tailgating you has more time to react if you need to stop suddenly, reducing the chances of them killing you.

Scott
  • 316
  • 1
  • 3
2

I don't think it's rude, although the driver behind you might think otherwise. You are obeying the law, and the person behind you is not respecting that and risking yours and his/her lives; that's the one being rude.

My advice is get out of his way anyway, one way or another. Let the idiot kill someone else!

Ben Hillier
  • 145
  • 3
  • Hi, Welcome to Interpersonal Skills Stack Exchange. I appreciate your answer, but can you explain a bit more *why* you believe it's rude? Thanks. – HDE 226868 Jul 20 '17 at 11:26
  • 1
    I said it's not rude, and my explanation has been added. I stand by the advice I give, even though it seems to be good for a couple of downvotes. – Ben Hillier Jul 20 '17 at 11:54
  • 1
    Right, let the idiot behind you pass at the first possible moment. It's not fun being slammed into from the behind even if you are in the right for stopping for a deer or a log on the road. You can alway smile and wave when you pass the idiot later,when he is pulled over or has driven off the road in an unexpected sharp bend. – Lenne Jul 23 '17 at 10:34
-1

Yes, it is rude, and the law has nothing to do with it. It's simply a matter of the OP's refusal to make any effort to be accommodating to others whom they are annoying. The law, and anyone's obedience to it or lack thereof, is irrelevant.

They asked about manners, not legality, and deliberately ignoring someone else's distress when you're aware of it, whether you think it's reasonable for them to be distressed by your behavior or not, is rude. Period.

It is also bad manners to post a question in such slanted terms that those answering it are strongly influenced towards one answer, as this poster did. That's not intellectual inquiry, it's asking for emotional support.

DaveInAZ
  • 175
  • 7
    *"OP's refusal to make any effort to be accommodating to others"* Well now that's phrased rather strongly. He's asking this question for a start. – Luc Jul 19 '17 at 19:59
  • 3
    I don't understand how someone with a lead foot who wants to go over the speed limit should be able to dictate the speed of the drivers around them. Why do you think this person is in "distress"? – Catija Jul 19 '17 at 21:17
  • 1
    I would appreciate it if you removed the editorializing and tried to make this post answer the question - especially by explaining a bit more *why* you feel I'm being rude. – HDE 226868 Jul 19 '17 at 21:31
  • 1
    Actually I completely agree... but hey, id rather be rude and alive that nice and dead. – BACKPFEIFENGESICHT Jul 19 '17 at 22:01
  • 5
    Why is the OP rude and not the driver behind them? – user253751 Jul 19 '17 at 23:36
  • @Catija21 - Why do you think someone timid should be able to dictate the speed of those behind them? In most jurisdictions in the US, that is considered "impersonating an officer of the law", because they are the ONLY people authorized to enforce the speed limit. The extremely specific circumstances specified in the OP mitigate this, which I believe was the intent, but the principle is still in force. – DaveInAZ Jul 20 '17 at 19:08
  • @HDE226868 - I answered your question, directly, impartially, and in the simplest terms possible. That you disagree was a foregone conclusion. – DaveInAZ Jul 20 '17 at 19:10
  • @Chad - me, too – DaveInAZ Jul 20 '17 at 19:11
  • 1
    @immibis - No one said the driver behind the OP isn't also rude, but that wasn't the question. – DaveInAZ Jul 20 '17 at 19:13
  • 1
    @daveinaz that's not how the impersonation law works, that's not how any of it works. Only police can enforce The law but I'm not impersonating a cop by telling you not to be loud, not To drink underage our no smoking in The building. The safety issue overrides any rudeness anyway. – Passerby Jul 21 '17 at 04:54
  • @Passerby - Perhaps you don't remember when people were being cited for participating in "rolling roadblocks". I happen to work in the legal sector, and I am quite certain of my information. And yes, safety is more important than politeness. That does not absolve the rudeness. It merely excuses it. The rudeness continues to exist. – DaveInAZ Jul 21 '17 at 22:11
  • If you work in that sector, maybe you can cite a court case were someone was cited for and convicted of impersonating an officer simply for not going faster than someone else. Because at worst that's simply a impeding traffic moving violation, not a criminal impersonation arrest. And I don't know what you mean by that rolling roadblock thing. Source? @daveinaz – Passerby Jul 21 '17 at 22:24
  • Ok to try to be unbiased, I see where you're coming from in that going under the speed limit and impairing others ability to drive the speed limit **is** rude. But OP claims to drive the speed limit for the most part and then 5mph under in the worst sections, and for that reason I think this answer is an overreaction. If OP had stated that they were driving 25 in 55 because he thought the road was hazardous, I'd be inclined to agree that is rude (unless the road is just a deathtrap with poorly adjusted speed limits) – DasBeasto Jul 24 '17 at 13:03
  • @DasBeasto - It is not the speed that the answer objects too as being rude its the obstructionist attitude of the OP. *deliberately ignoring someone else's distress when you're aware of it, whether you think it's reasonable for them to be distressed by your behavior or not, is rude. Period.* - As I said and the answerer agreed... sometimes better to be rude and safe than nice and dead. – BACKPFEIFENGESICHT Jul 24 '17 at 14:54