It's a National Sport in Some States

I've lived on the west coast, the east coast, up north, and down south in the great country that is America.

The one thing that I've found in most any state is that many (no, make that most) people who drive love to tailgate.  Heck in Utah, it's a national sport.

For reference sake, Tailgating = driving too close behind another vehicle without maintaining a safe stopping distance.  Most statutes define it as failing to leave sufficient space “so as to be able to stop safely without colliding.”

When I took driver training in high school many moons ago, "safe stopping distance" meant 2 car lengths or 2 seconds behind the car in front of you (whichever is greater).  Note, that's car lengths like about how long a typical sedan is - not how long a "smart" car is (which is, essentially, a roller skate).

However, according to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), State Departments of Motor Vehicles (DMV), Department of Transportation (DOT), National Safety Council (NSC), and every single Insurance provider,  "safe stopping distance" equates to:

• The Three-Second Rule: This is the most common guideline for passenger vehicles in ideal conditions. You should count three seconds from the time the vehicle in front of you passes a fixed object (like a road sign) until your vehicle passes the same point.
• Expanded Rules: Driving experts recommend extending the following distance in certain situations:
• In poor weather (rain, snow): Increase your following distance to four to six seconds or more.
• At night or with low visibility: Leave extra space for your reaction time.
• With larger or heavier vehicles: Increase your following distance, as more weight increases the braking distance.
• On slippery surfaces (ice): Give yourself 10 times the normal braking distance

Essentially, "safe stopping distance is based on the road surface at the point and time you are driving your vehicle.

Maybe the reason people love to tailgate is because they don't know or realize what the danger is?  Tailgating is dangerous because:

• Reduced reaction time – You can’t stop fast enough if the car ahead brakes suddenly.

• Rear-end collisions – One of the most common types of crashes, is often caused by tailgating.

• Chain-reaction crashes – On highways, tailgating leads to multi-car pileups.

• Aggressive driving risk – Often linked with road rage, intimidation, or reckless driving.

I remember one time I was driving up the I-5 north just past the Tejon Pass and dropped into a swamp of fog 100 miles long up through the San Joaquin Valley (the bread basket of California).  I mean, you couldn't see 3 feet in front of you.  Cars were reduced from driving 55-100 MPH to a measly 3-5 mph.  

Well, most people.  

There was one idiot who was honking and hugging everyone's bumper like the fog was our fault.  We found him a couple miles up the road wrapped around the rear axle of a semi truck.

The thing is, tailgating is a crime in every state of the union.  For example:

California – Cal. Vehicle Code § 21703: Drivers “shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent.”

Texas – Tex. Transp. Code § 545.062: Must maintain “assured clear distance.”

New York – N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 1129(a): Must not follow more closely than is “reasonable and prudent.”

Florida – Fla. Stat. § 316.0895: Prohibits following more closely than is reasonable.

Illinois – 625 ILCS 5/11-710: Cannot follow “more closely than is reasonable and prudent.”

Pennsylvania – 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3310: Drivers shall not follow more closely than reasonable.

Ohio – Ohio Rev. Code § 4511.34: “Assured clear distance” and prohibits following too closely.

Michigan – Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.643: Must not follow closer than is “reasonable and prudent.”

Georgia – O.C.G.A. § 40-6-49: Following too closely prohibited.

Arizona – Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-730: Must not follow too closely for speed, traffic, and road conditions.

Washington – RCW 46.61.145: Drivers shall not follow “more closely than is reasonable and prudent.”

Colorado – Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42-4-1008: Prohibits following more closely than reasonable.

Virginia – Va. Code § 46.2-816: Following too closely prohibited.

North Carolina – N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-152: Prohibits following more closely than is reasonable and prudent.

Massachusetts – Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 14B: Must not follow more closely than is reasonable. 

Utah - Utah Code, Title 41 § 41-6a-711 (Following too closely): The operator of a vehicle may not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of the vehicles, the traffic upon, and the condition of the highway. 

Wait, what does "reasonable and prudent" mean?  The phrase “reasonable and prudent” is the key standard in almost every state’s tailgating statute. It’s intentionally flexible, because lawmakers can’t write a one-size-fits-all “exact number of feet” that works at every speed and in every road condition.

Like I said up above, when a statute says you must not follow more closely than is “reasonable and prudent”, it means:

• You must leave enough space to stop safely if the car ahead slows or stops suddenly.

• The space must adjust based on:

  • Speed (faster = more stopping distance)

  • Traffic density (congested traffic = more caution)

  • Road conditions (wet, icy, or gravel roads require more distance)

  • Vehicle size/weight (trucks need more braking distance than cars)

Legislatures avoid setting a specific distance (like “100 feet”) because safe following distance changes constantly. Instead, “reasonable and prudent” makes it a case-by-case standard, enforced by officers, judges, and juries.

Got that?  It's to the cops discretion whether you were tailgating.

So, if the cop says you were driving too close, you probably were.  Don't argue the issue because you'll just wind up in cuffs with a resisting arrest charge tacked on for your efforts.  

Just sign the ticket and move along. 

So, how have courts viewed tailgating?  Turns out, not well for the tailgater.

Bexar County, Texas – Manslaughter from Tailgating and Reckless Driving (2025)

• A jury convicted a driver for manslaughter following a fatal motorcycle crash near San Antonio, centered on tailgating, speeding, and passing in a no-passing zone. The defendant received a 10-year sentence, plus a concurrent 3-year term for carrying a weapon.

• Relevance: Demonstrates how tailgating combined with other dangerous behaviors can elevate charges to serious crimes—even unintentionally causing death.

Roux v. Coffey, Docket #AC46898 (2025)

• Case summary: A Connecticut appellate court ruled in January 2025 that Live Nation, the concert promoter, was not liable for the death of a 17-year-old, Luke Roux, who was killed by a driver (Jacob Coffey) who had tailgated outside the Xfinity Theater after drinking and then ran a red light. The court determined that property owners don’t generally bear liability for individuals who consume alcohol on their property and later drive and cause harm.

• Significance: The case underscores legal boundaries on premises liability when alcohol and tailgating precede a DUI crash.

Fassett v. Santiam Loggers, Inc., 267 Or. 505, 517 P.2d 1059 (1973) – Truck rear-ended a car after following too closely. Court held that violation of Oregon’s tailgating statute constituted negligence per se, making the trucking company liable.

Harris v. Harman, 253 Va. 336, 486 S.E.2d 99 (1997)

• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

• Issue: Whether tailgating contributed to the plaintiff's accident.

• Outcome: The court found that Harris had been tailgating Harman for a considerable period, which distracted Harman. The jury had to determine if this tailgating was the cause of the accident. This case highlights how tailgating can be a factor in determining negligence.

Garnot v. Johnson, 239 Va. 81, 387 S.E.2d 473 (1990)

• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

• Issue: Whether the rear driver's tailgating was the proximate cause of the rear-end collision.

• Outcome: The court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to an instruction on following too closely, emphasizing the rear driver's responsibility in maintaining a safe distance.

Meeks v. Hodges, 226 Va. 106, 306 S.E.2d 879 (1983)

• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

• Issue: Whether the rear driver was following too closely, leading to the accident.

• Outcome: The court found that there was a jury question as to whether the rear driver was following too closely, which contributed to the accident.

Bottom line:  Slow down, back off and pay attention to the conditions of the road.  If you think you're too close or the driver in front of you suddenly taps their breaks and you're having to smash the brakes to avoid an accident, you probably are too close.  

 

So, back the @#%# off my bumper!