It’s not clear if this is a Florida law or just a law in some localities like Sarasota.
So we are not talking about a parallel parking technique.
Nor am I. Stupidest thing I’ve ever read!
The only time I’ve ever seen the “Do not back in” rule, it was to prevent pumping exhaust directly into the business.
My main parking spot has a turntable.
Y’know, down in the cave.
Backing out of a parking space turns your backup lights on which obviously signals to pedestrians and motorists that you are coming out. Driving straight out - front end first - is kind of startling and unexpected.
My chauffeur drops me off , and then my under-chauffeur drops him off.
The mountain comes to me.
Sure it was on Slate. But it’s written by the author of Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do, which is an excellent book, deeply researched.
I picked the article because it encapsulates the pro-side extremely well. If you want to find articles debating the issue, they’re all over. But the debate is now between almost every professional doing safety training and people who hear about the issue for the first time and give a visceral ugh. It might as well be climate change.
It’s new and people always find new things disturbing. Until they used to them and they become the standard that can never be changed. Back-in, head-out is the better alternative. It’s not perfect and may not be applicable to every situation. BUT IT DOESN’T HAVE TO BE. It just needs to be better than front-in, back-out. It is, which is why the professionals are mandating it in their companies.
I swear, this “one flaw” rule, in which if people can find a single flaw in a way of doing things differently it becomes entirely unacceptable is as nuts as the “one drop” rule was years ago. Their odiousness in practice is obviously not equivalent, but the mindset of finding any possible hook to hang one’s ingrained beliefs on, no matter how rickety that hook might be, is an unfortunate universal.
P.S. From Groucho’s link: “Typing two spaces after a period is totally, completely, utterly, and inarguably wrong.” This is totally, completely, utterly, and inarguably correct. This is your idea of a BAD example? :eek:
I am just quoting you for the beauty and simplicity of this sentence.
“Gee, boss, I scanned all the cars in all the parking lots in town except for the three blue hondas parked backwards, and I can’t find our missing blue hondas anywhere!”
If license plate visibility is the factor here, why not change the law to require front license plates? Is there some reason this hasn’t been done yet?
Yes, I usually just punch on the gas and shoot out of my parking spots whenever I can. People just need to learn to get out my way. Idiots. 
Then too bad the author didn’t communicate any of this in the article.
Sorry, but your cite really sucks.
Well, I really have to take your word for that, don’t I?
And I still don’t see much evidence that it is.
Again, proof?
Whaddaya mean, one flaw? The guy made a couple of points in favor of his argument…and they applied to only very particular situations. And that was all.
It was a weak-as-shit argument, and I found flaws with the trivial points it made.
When come back, bring a cite with a better argument. And be prepared to make the gist of the argument here, because a link to an argument is no substitute for making the argument yourself.
Absofuckinglutely. Whether it’s correct or not is not the issue. When you tell people they should never, ever do something, the question is, “suppose you persist in pursuing the incorrect course. The downside is…?” I think you get my drift.
There are quite a few states which don’t require a front plate. Not having to issue a front plate is sometimes touted as a cost savings for the state. Ohio seems to be debating this issue currently:
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2014/02/18/should-car-have-1-or-2-license-plates.html
Admittedly, saving $1.4 million annually seems like a piddling amount given most state’s budgets.
Anyway, it DOES create a whole cottage industry for promotional and decorative plates to be stuck in the front license plate holder in those states.
There must be at least 1.4 million cars in Ohio, so they can just charge owners $1 for the extra plate. Makes no sense. In Florida, or anywhere else with this stupid law they should allow car owners to buy an extra plate for the front so they can back into spots. Or just require two plates or get rid of the stupid back in law. I still don’t believe there’s a safety issue.
Accident statistics do not seem to support the notion that backing into spaces is safer. I notice the Slate article doesn’t have any actual numbers. Well, according to kidsandcars.org over a five year period from 2006 to 2010 there were 806 fatal accidents of which about 44.5% were frontover and 55.5% were backover.
Considering that the overwhelming majority of people pull in and back out you would expect the difference to be far greater if the risks were equal.
This page on the same site states that in over 70% of backover fatalities the driver is a parent or close relative, which implies that most probably happen in home driveways rather than parking lots.
I know I live in Flori-duhh, but…
How could a system have an “optional, extra cost” second plate just for backers? They’d have to manufacture two of every plate, then do what with the “opted out” ones? And you think the extra cost would only be $1 each?
There is no safety issue, at least not one controlling this situation. Number of plates is a state option, and Florida chose to use one. That being the case, jurisdictions within Florida who have purchased expensive scanner systems (Bear_Nenno had it exactly right) may pass a local ordinance requiring cars to keep their plate (singular) visible when parked. Or may not. Clearly, some have, and give tickets for violations. It pays to learn your local traffic laws!
Because it is the city making the rule. The state couldn’t care less, and that is who would need to change the plate law.
I just rotate the globe until my destination arrives at me.
Isn’t that just talking about backing up versus moving forward in general, and not about backing into parking spots vs nosing into parking spots?
I don’t think anyone disagrees that backing up is more dangerous than moving forward. So the “backing into the spot” proponents favor choosing to perform the more difficult maneuver into the parking spot, which is easier to check for pedestrians/other cars, and is much less likely to have a pedestrian/other car suddenly enter it, rather than having to check the whole rest of the parking lot (as you do when you back out of a spot).
I’ve never had that happen. When I park, I do a nose dive towards the parking space then swing hard to the opposite side. So by the time I put my truck into reverse, my truck is sitting diagonally with my rear bumper pointing towards the parking spot.
With a big truck like mine pulling in front first requires a three point maneuver, backing in only requires 2.
Blocking traffic is going to happen either way.