Rude to sleep in car?

[Granny Takes a Trip]

In my group, people have fallen asleep in the car after we get off the trail. No one complains or tries to wake them up. There might be some good-natured kidding when they wake up, but that's about it. We all understand what several hours of steady exercise in the fresh air can do to a person. And if we aren't camping near our hiking spot, it's much better that a tired person get a nap in before getting into his/her car to drive home. And the OP did mention that she could have used the nap before getting into her car to drive the half hour home.

And that's fine for your group.  That doesn't mean it's the only acceptable way for any group to handle it.  And the OP is free to find a group more like yours if that's what fits with her style better.  Remember, this isn't just a driver/OP issue.  It's the entire group feeling one thing is acceptable and OP thinking something else.  Neither has to be wrong, but the OP can't insist that the entire group do things the way she alone wants. 

Actually, I think camlam's group is pretty typical.
 
I think its far more atypical that someone would demand something like this from one of his many passengers.  Most people would be gracious enough to just leave her alone unless they had good reason to do otherwise.
 
And "good reason" is what I see as missing from this.
 
If the OP is hard to wake up when they get to their destination and causes problems for the rest of the group--that would be a good reason.
 
But, "just because I said so, it's my car and I make the rules" is not good enough in this instance.
 
I just can't see that her sleeping when he has other mates to keep him company really has so much of an impact on him for him to make the demand.

POD. His whole attidude smacks of (benevolently) bullying micromanagement. Again, it would be different if OP was the only passenger in the car. As it is, I do agree that OP is a poor fit for the group. I don't agree that she is a snowflake. I think the driver is, a bit.

[Granny Takes a Trip]

I don't understand why the group doesn't want the OP to sleep, but the fact remains that they don't, and she'd be very rude not to respect that.

But why is it that the 'group dynamic' is the trump card, so to speak? Just because the majority of the group is put out doesn't mean that the OP is therefore rude. The majority is not always right, especially when the request is unreasonable (which in this case I think it is, because people often can't control the act of falling asleep).

I can think of plenty of examples where the large majority of a group might feel a particular way about something, e.g. say you have a tightknit group of friends who throw huge birthday parties for each person, and most of them consider it a grievous sin if you skip out on a birthday bash for whatever reason short of death (what, I'm not speaking from experience...okay, maybe a little). Are you being rude if you then miss a birthday party?

That said, even though I don't think the OP is rude, she might just need to find new people to ride with, because this group doesn't sound like the best fit.

I've seen on this thread the idea that the OP is rude for continuing to accept rides even after knowing how the group feels. Well, why can't we turn that question around back on to the rest of the group? They are continuing to offer the OP rides even though they know she has a habit of falling asleep in cars. So why can't we just as easily say to the rest of the group, "Well, you know what you're getting into when you get into a car with the OP, so suck it up, buttercup." If it bothers them that much, they should just stop offering rides to the OP.

Poddity pod pod! Just because something is 'the group dymamic, does not make it polite. By that logic, high school bullies would be polite, and the one in their group who refused to participate in bullting rude. That definition of 'rude' jus doesn't fly. Having said that, the OP would be well advised to find a new group to ride with. These people sound irritating, at best.

[evely28]

I don't understand how it can be considered not rude to accept hospitality and then go against the expressed wish'es of the giver. Maybe the thread title should be changed to "Is it rude to sleep in the car when the driver has told you not to?" because the etiquette of this situation in not on the first, it's on the second.

I also think it's inconsiderate to the other passengers, some may be more tired than the OP, but are willing to not sleep to respect the rules of the driver. So how is this not snowflakey or boorish?

Again, while I commiserate with the OP and wouldn't have this rule in my car, since it is the rule for this particular mode of transportation, I would urge the OP to find a group with a "sleeping car".

[Granny Takes a Trip]

I don't understand how it can be considered not rude to accept hospitality and then go against the expressed wish'es of the giver. Maybe the thread title should be changed to "Is it rude to sleep in the car when the driver has told you not to?" because the etiquette of this situation in not on the first, it's on the second.

I also think it's inconsiderate to the other passengers, some may be more tired than the OP, but are willing to not sleep to respect the rules of the driver. So how is this not snowflakey or boorish?

Again, while I commiserate with the OP and wouldn't have this rule in my car, since it is the rule for this particular mode of transportation, I would urge the OP to find a group with a "sleeping car".

ITA with the last part of your post. However, I heartily disagree that the OP was rude in any way. I think that the others are rude, and ,yes, boorish. If they really felt so strongly about it, they should have approached it in a more mature manner. And really, it doesn't sound as if they wanted to keep her awake for a good reason, just that they flet she 'should' be  awake. If they had even come up with a 'sleep rota' I would have seen the point. As it was, they resorted to high school tactics. Immature and ridiculous.

[Sharnita]

So if somebody insisted on driving and they found the way I sneeze irriating would they be justified in banning me and everyone else from sneezing?  I don't think Op has indicated anywhere that she could stay awake but chose to sleep - it sounds like it happened whether she wants it too or not, kinda like a sneeze.  Now, I would find anyone who banned sneezing boorish - because it is generally outside a person's control.  I would also refuse rides from them in the future but that wouldn't mean that their decree was reasonable.

[noexitwounds]

So if somebody insisted on driving and they found the way I sneeze irriating would they be justified in banning me and everyone else from sneezing?  I don't think Op has indicated anywhere that she could stay awake but chose to sleep - it sounds like it happened whether she wants it too or not, kinda like a sneeze.  Now, I would find anyone who banned sneezing boorish - because it is generally outside a person's control.  I would also refuse rides from them in the future but that wouldn't mean that their decree was reasonable.

Well, let's say that you're sneezing not just sometimes but regularly (as the OP kept falling asleep, as in multiple times in a single trip) and the driver or one of the passengers has a weakened immune system (maybe from a chronic condition, maybe because they're just getting over something). Therefore, they ask you to please try to control your sneezing. You do try to control it, but you can't because you're sick or you have allergies.

Do you accept a ride with them a second time, presuming your situation hasn't changed (i.e. you're still sneezing regularly), even though you know it'll upset the driver and other passengers?

I'd say if you do, when you have other choices, you'd be rude. It's not rude of you to sneeze -- it's rude to accept hospitality and then do something that flouts and disrespects that hospitality. Now, you can say that it's not the same situation because in the sneezing example there's a definite medical risk -- however, without knowing the driver's (or passengers') actual motivation for being upset at the sleeping we can't say it wasn't a medical reason (whether it made the driver sleepy if anyone slept in his car or if he had an anxiety issue related to people sleeping in cars, etc.).

I will say that this guy shouldn't have continued offering the OP a ride. I can only figure he did because he felt it'd be rude to offer a ride to everyone but the OP.

[Granny Takes a Trip]

So if somebody insisted on driving and they found the way I sneeze irriating would they be justified in banning me and everyone else from sneezing?  I don't think Op has indicated anywhere that she could stay awake but chose to sleep - it sounds like it happened whether she wants it too or not, kinda like a sneeze.  Now, I would find anyone who banned sneezing boorish - because it is generally outside a person's control.  I would also refuse rides from them in the future but that wouldn't mean that their decree was reasonable.

Well, let's say that you're sneezing not just sometimes but regularly (as the OP kept falling asleep, as in multiple times in a single trip) and the driver or one of the passengers has a weakened immune system (maybe from a chronic condition, maybe because they're just getting over something). Therefore, they ask you to please try to control your sneezing. You do try to control it, but you can't because you're sick or you have allergies.

Do you accept a ride with them a second time, presuming your situation hasn't changed (i.e. you're still sneezing regularly), even though you know it'll upset the driver and other passengers?

I'd say if you do, when you have other choices, you'd be rude. It's not rude of you to sneeze -- it's rude to accept hospitality and then do something that flouts and disrespects that hospitality. Now, you can say that it's not the same situation because in the sneezing example there's a definite medical risk -- however, without knowing the driver's (or passengers') actual motivation for being upset at the sleeping we can't say it wasn't a medical reason (whether it made the driver sleepy if anyone slept in his car or if he had an anxiety issue related to people sleeping in cars, etc.).

I will say that this guy shouldn't have continued offering the OP a ride. I can only figure he did because he felt it'd be rude to offer a ride to everyone but the OP.

The problem with this is that you're right, the OP does not know the reason for the driver to be uncomfortable with her sleeping. Why? Because he chose to play silly games, instead of coming out and telling her what his reason was. I am actually reluctant to give him the benefit of the doubt, because I agree with PPs that his attitude seems quite controlling. I think he might just object to OP sleeping because it is something he can intefere with. Even of that is not the case, I think it is still his responsibility to let the OP know why he has this rule. Yes, it is 'his car, his rules' but this rule does not seem very reasonable without explanation. and I think common courtesy requires him to give it.

[TinyVulgarUnicorn]

The problem with this is that you're right, the OP does not know the reason for the driver to be uncomfortable with her sleeping. Why? Because he chose to play silly games, instead of comingout and telling her twhat his reason was. I am actually reluctant to give him the benefit of the doubt, because I agree with PPs that his attitude seems quite controlling. I think he moght just object to OP slepping because it is something he can intefere with. Even of that is not the case, I think it is still his responsibility to let the OP know why he has this rule. Yes, it is 'his car, his rules' but this rule does not seem very reasonable without explanation. and I think common courtesy requires him to give it.

Haven't we always said on this board that a reason isn't necessary as long as you word the request in a polite way?  I don't think he needs a reason...it's his car and his hospitality.  If she had a problem with his request than she could have used another form of transportation. 

It would be as if I went to someone's house and they asked me not to eat in their living room.  I don't need an explanation and it would be rude on my part to ask why.  Courtesy doesn't require that they give me this answer.

[Granny Takes a Trip]

The problem with this is that you're right, the OP does not know the reason for the driver to be uncomfortable with her sleeping. Why? Because he chose to play silly games, instead of comingout and telling her twhat his reason was. I am actually reluctant to give him the benefit of the doubt, because I agree with PPs that his attitude seems quite controlling. I think he moght just object to OP slepping because it is something he can intefere with. Even of that is not the case, I think it is still his responsibility to let the OP know why he has this rule. Yes, it is 'his car, his rules' but this rule does not seem very reasonable without explanation. and I think common courtesy requires him to give it.

Haven't we always said on this board that a reason isn't necessary as long as you word the request in a polite way?  I don't think he needs a reason...it's his car and his hospitality.  If she had a problem with his request than she could have used another form of transportation. 

It would be as if I went to someone's house and they asked me not to eat in their living room.  I don't need an explanation and it would be rude on my part to ask why.  Courtesy doesn't require that they give me this answer.

While you have a point, I don't think he really did phrase his request in a polite way. I'm not a big fan of joking around when you want to be taken seriously. It is immature. I also think that the not eating in the living room is different from  not sleeping in the car. It is much more easily controllable. There is also an imlicit reason for it (no mess) even if that reason is not explicitly given. Under the circumstances, the 'no sleeping' rule does not seem reasonable. I agree with PPs who say that OP should find alternative driving arrangements. I disagree that she's the rude one, even though she goes against the group dynamic.

[whatsanenigma]

Under the circumstances, the 'no sleeping' rule does not seem reasonable. I agree with PPs who say that OP should find alternative driving arrangements. I disagree that she's the rude one, even though she goes against the group dynamic.

I agree with this.

And as I have said before, I wonder how it would have actually gone over if the OP had tried to refuse the rides on this basis.

If a group of people really consider the drive there and the drive back to be part of the social outing, and they really don't want anyone to sleep, well personally I find that unreasonable especially after a heavy physical activity like a hike. But if that's what they want, well, okay.

But if the drive there and back is part of the social activity, then wouldn't they be very likely to take offense at anyone choosing not to engage in that part of it at all?

If the OP doesn't even know for sure that she will fall asleep, her declining to ride with the group might mean that they lose her company for the whole time (say, an hour). If she falls asleep for 10 minutes they still get her company for 50 minutes. Even if she falls asleep for 55 minutes, they still get 5 minutes of her company that they wouldn't get if she found alternative transportation.

I am very curious as to what would have happened with this group had the OP just flat out declined. It obviously was important to this driver that he do a favor to the group. Giving hospitality gave him pride and satisfaction. And for someone to just reject it, no matter how politely, I just think it would have caused even more group tension.

And in that case...well, I would question just how good of friends these people really were.

It's such an impossible situation. They want her in the car. But not to fall asleep. She can't help falling asleep. But they want her there and there is no graceful way (I can think of) to not be in that car that wouldn't cause offense. And if it's for the sake of socializing with the others, she loses all of it by respecting their wishes to not lose even a little bit by falling asleep.

I wonder if they would have changed their tune and realized this if she had brought it up directly, or if it really would have been worth it to them for her to find her own ride. Or if there would have just been a big stupid fight.

Bad situation, all the way around.

[Granny Takes a Trip]

Under the circumstances, the 'no sleeping' rule does not seem reasonable. I agree with PPs who say that OP should find alternative driving arrangements. I disagree that she's the rude one, even though she goes against the group dynamic.

I agree with this.

And as I have said before, I wonder how it would have actually gone over if the OP had tried to refuse the rides on this basis.

If a group of people really consider the drive there and the drive back to be part of the social outing, and they really don't want anyone to sleep, well personally I find that unreasonable especially after a heavy physical activity like a hike. But if that's what they want, well, okay.

But if the drive there and back is part of the social activity, then wouldn't they be very likely to take offense at anyone choosing not to engage in that part of it at all?

If the OP doesn't even know for sure that she will fall asleep, her declining to ride with the group might mean that they lose her company for the whole time (say, an hour). If she falls asleep for 10 minutes they still get her company for 50 minutes. Even if she falls asleep for 55 minutes, they still get 5 minutes of her company that they wouldn't get if she found alternative transportation.

I am very curious as to what would have happened with this group had the OP just flat out declined. It obviously was important to this driver that he do a favor to the group. Giving hospitality gave him pride and satisfaction. And for someone to just reject it, no matter how politely, I just think it would have caused even more group tension.

And in that case...well, I would question just how good of friends these people really were.

It's such an impossible situation. They want her in the car. But not to fall asleep. She can't help falling asleep. But they want her there and there is no graceful way (I can think of) to not be in that car that wouldn't cause offense. And if it's for the sake of socializing with the others, she loses all of it by respecting their wishes to not lose even a little bit by falling asleep.

I wonder if they would have changed their tune and realized this if she had brought it up directly, or if it really would have been worth it to them for her to find her own ride. Or if there would have just been a big stupid fight.

Bad situation, all the way around.

POD. The driver and fellow passengers sound like a real bunch (flurry?) of snowflakes.  OP, I think you're better off wihout them, for driving anyway. Let Mr. Benevolence exert his benign dictatorship over someone else.

[JoieGirl7]

Could we maybe introduce some defined variables into this thread?
 
As the actual story in the OP took place long ago, none of our advice is really relevant anymore and we are arguing in circles.
 
Why don't we take a look at how this kind of situation would play out with defined groups.
 
For instance:  maybe its a hiking group put together by REI or a community recreation service.
 
Maybe its a group of like ages--or various ages--or possibly even relatives.
 
What if we switch up the genders of the driver and the sleeper in the car?

If we define some of those variables, then we can discuss what various scenarios that we would find rude or not rude and maybe establish more common ground.

[WhiteTigerCub]

IMHO if the driver of a vehicle gets tired when driving and needs someone to help them stay awake, then he/she should communicate it as everyone is getting in the car. Someone can then volunteer to sit in the passenger seat for that purpose.

It should not matter at all if others in the vehicle choose to sleep if they are tired. Seriously, if a person cannot drive with others sleeping in the car, then perhaps he/she is not the right person to be driving a group on long trips anyway.

[whatsanenigma]

IMHO if the driver of a vehicle gets tired when driving and needs someone to help them stay awake, then he/she should communicate it as everyone is getting in the car. Someone can then volunteer to sit in the passenger seat for that purpose.

I would also add that it needs to be okay, if that person starts to feel sleepy, for that person to request that the driver pull over so "shotgun" can switch off with someone else.

I think it would be very rude to insist that the same person take on the duty all the way, even if at first that person said it would be okay. We all get sleepy, and at unpredictable times sometimes.

[JoieGirl7]

What do you think of allowing the driver to insist on driving all the time without compensation or gas money?  Should that be discouraged in groups?
 
I think it tends to unbalance them a bit.  But, I can understand why someone people wouldn't want certain people driving.  And it could be a function of whose car is the largest.
 
But, then, I think the others should pitch in with some kind of compensation or gas money because otherwise, everyone in the car is then kind of freeloading whether they are sleeping or not.  I don't think that not sleeping in the car makes up for not driving or pitching in monetarily.

As to the social aspects, I don't consider the time after a great exertion to be part of the social activity--its more of a quiet time.
 
And I would have a problem with someone sleeping in my car if I couldn't get them out at the end of the trip.  If they were so sleepy that it was unpleasant to uproot them that I would consider that a problem, but I probably would just make a point to wake them up about 15 minutes before the destination and not demand that they not sleep at all.
 
People have made some really good points in general about how if you are the driver to make your expectations known from the start.
 
I have been in a car when the driver proclaimed that there would be no potty stops after we were underway.  That's just not going to work for me under any circumstance.  And it was my FIL!