Seattle Drivers (Not Really) Courteous

It's almost as if there's some kind of unwritten rule that at least once a year someone has to write a story about how "polite" Seattle drivers are on the road.

In a survey by AutoVantage released this week, Seattle drivers were rated as among the most courteous — less likely to change lanes without signaling or swear at fellow motorists. But many in this region say it's a reputation that's dead-on, but not always welcomed.

"There are many drivers who think that yielding right of way is always a courtesy, when in actuality it can be frustrating or even dangerous," said Dan Manville, 27, a library technician from Tacoma.

Stopping to let pedestrians cross when there is no marked crosswalk is one example, he said. Another is the "famous reluctance" to go first at a four-way stop.

Those things aren't polite or courteous... they're just stupid. Traffic laws are designed to make traffic flow smoothly. When someone stops unnecessarily to let a pedestrian jaywalk or breaks the pattern at a four-way stop, that screws up traffic. Speaking of traffic laws, there's one part of the article that I have to take exception to:

"Yes, they're polite, but they're also very passive-aggressive," said Robert Heath, 40, an e-commerce consultant who moved here from Los Angeles six years ago. Seattleites, he said, don't have a clue how to drive in an urban area.

Nothing makes him crazier than this classic move: Drivers in the freeway fast lane who refuse to go fast, letting traffic pile up behind them.

"The culture is kind of this childish, 'I'm going to stick by the book,'" he said.

That's the worst form of passive-aggressive motoring, said Leon James, a psychology professor at the University of Hawaii who studies driving.

"The person is breaking all the rules and creating a traffic danger point, forcing others to go into the right lane to pass them," James said. "That one driver will upset hundreds of drivers in one minute. That's dangerous and selfish."

So, according to Robert, following the law is "childish," and according to Prof. James, following the law is equivalent to "breaking all the rules." Hmm. How exactly does traveling at the posted speed limit "force" anyone to go around on the right, pray tell? Could someone explain the "logic" behind that?

Consider this scenario: Driver A is driving down I-5 south of Olympia (where it's just two lanes in each direction). The right lane has a steady flow of semi trucks, RVs, and other slow-moving (as in, below the 70mph speed limit) vehicles. So Driver A sets his cruise control to 70 and keeps left as he glides past the slower traffic. Driver B is flying down the road at 85mph, and soon finds himself behind Driver A. Angrily reducing his speed to the unbearable crawl of 70mph, he waits for his opportunity, and when a slight gap appears between semis, he zips into the right lane (without signaling), speeds past Driver A, then cuts back into the left lane (again, no signal) and speeds back up to 85mph.

Can you sit there with a straight face and tell me that Driver A was the one that was creating a dangerous situation here? Don't even bother trying the old "the law requires you to keep right except to pass" argument. Is the driver traveling at 85mph keeping right? Furthermore, why is it okay for Driver B to exceed the speed limit by 15mph (breaking the law), but it is not okay for Driver A to stay in the left lane?

If the speed limits are set too low, we should petition the government to raise them. It doesn't make any sense to rage against people that choose to follow the law. And that's my rant for the day.

(Phuong Cat Le, Seattle P-I , 05.18.2006)