# The perverse motivation of back-in parkers? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 4, 2015, 10:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-perverse-motivation-of-back-in-parkers/716793 "2015-04-04T10:52:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Haberdash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Haberdash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Haberdash)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2015, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-perverse-motivation-of-back-in-parkers/716793/161 "2015-04-06T23:43:03Z")
OK. Monroeville is wrong, and is mandating a practice that is less safe. Any other towns you’d like to add to that list? ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-perverse-motivation-of-back-in-parkers/716793/162 "2015-04-07T00:24:02Z")
Notice that all of these citations are for head-in parking in _angled_ parking spaces. Yet you’re citing them as support for an unspoken assumption that head-in parking is safer for _square_ parking spaces. I can’t for the life of me parallel park next to a curb with a bend in it. I also would find it difficult to back into angled parking. Why should I accept your citation of the rules of angled parking space as evidence that head-in parking is generally safer—when they don’t say anything about it—when I can see with my own eyes what’s going on? ---
**Author:** ![Doug\_K](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b5ac83/32.png) [@Doug\_K](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doug_K)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-perverse-motivation-of-back-in-parkers/716793/163 "2015-04-07T00:48:30Z")
> [@Haberdash](#): > > OK. Monroeville is wrong, and is mandating a practice that is less safe. > > Any other towns you’d like to add to that list? This is getting tiresome. If you have links to any data supporting this, please post them. All you have to do is show that significantly more then 94% of accidents caused by cars leaving spots in parking lots are from backing out. I’ve posted links to data that suggests otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Haberdash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Haberdash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Haberdash)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-perverse-motivation-of-back-in-parkers/716793/164 "2015-04-07T01:09:52Z")
You’ve posted links to data about people doing exactly the thing you are defending (backing out into traffic) in driveways, which are not parking lots. This is actually worse than arguing with creationists. At least they don’t link to chapters about the evolution of great apes in biology textbooks and claim it’s proof that amino acids are pink. ---
**Author:** ![Doug\_K](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b5ac83/32.png) [@Doug\_K](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doug_K)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-perverse-motivation-of-back-in-parkers/716793/165 "2015-04-07T02:08:53Z")
> [@Haberdash](#): > > You’ve posted links to data about people doing exactly the thing you are defending (backing out into traffic) in driveways, which are not parking lots. > > This is actually worse than arguing with creationists. At least they don’t link to chapters about the evolution of great apes in biology textbooks and claim it’s proof that amino acids are pink. No, the NHTSA document is stats for fatalities and injuries in private drives, driveways, and parking facilities. > [@](#): > > These crashes, subsequently referred to as “nontraffic crashes,” are mostly single-vehicle crashes on private roads, two-vehicle crashes in parking facilities, or collisions with pedestrians on driveways. You have offered nothing to support your point of view (unless you count bizarre non-sequiturs about creationists). Unless you can come up with a link to some real statistics, I don’t see any point in responding any more. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-perverse-motivation-of-back-in-parkers/716793/166 "2015-04-07T05:31:27Z")
The irony of the Creationist non-sequitur being great given the insistence these folk are having on accepting revealed truth. Evidence? They don’t need no stinking evidence. It is as obvious to them as it is that a universe this complicated _must_ have been designed. Anyway, sure, governmental agencies, from Monroeville PA to Bahrain, are wrong but what a fleet operator says is authoritative, gospel it be … and 99% of parking lots are just striped with no thought into the design at all … those [zoning regulations in every town and village](https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&es_th=1&ie=UTF-8#q=parking%20lot%20zoning%20regulations%20small%20town&es_th=1) do not really exist. Only a few large city downtowns have those regulations … that list is the work of Satan. Again, I don’t know what the actual answer is and mostly go with the fact if I’ve gone shopping I want facing out entrance to my hatch to load, and with not wanting to make others wait on me to back in. Pulling through, with great caution and slowly, looking out for others who might be pulling in from the space’s associated lane, or someone parked adjacent opening a door without expecting me to be pulling across, may indeed avoid any backing up and be a net gain if rear hatch access is not needed. At least one fleet operator site offered some data to support that claim. The rest y’all are free to accept on faith and proselytize to the unconverted infidel hordes all you like. Enjoy. ---
**Author:** ![Haberdash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Haberdash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Haberdash)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-perverse-motivation-of-back-in-parkers/716793/167 "2015-04-07T14:11:47Z")
I won’t enjoy it when you run over my kid backing out of a space blind while jerking off into your 52-ounce soda like the average American. This MATTERS. There’s a lot of stupid angels-on-a-pinhead arguing on this board. It doesn’t actually matter to anyone here whether New York gives Muslim holidays off school or whether Robert Blake killed his wife or whether it’s accurate to describe glass as a liquid. All of those things are fun to argue about. This is one thing that will actually decrease your likelihood of getting into an accident. You resist it because you’re scared of change and unable to comprehend the meaning of words – “perpendicular parking spaces have to be a certain size” means “you must front in to spaces” to you, just like you can only conceive of “accidents while driving in reverse” as happening when you are moving into a space, because the part where you leave the space never happens. ---
**Author:** ![Bruce\_Wayne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bruce\_Wayne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bruce_Wayne)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-perverse-motivation-of-back-in-parkers/716793/168 "2015-04-07T15:06:56Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > I do think it is _as_ reasonable to assume that parking lot designers would implement established “settled” parking lot safety principles into their designs as it is to assume that a fleet owner’s claim establishes what is settled science. Why assume one is more authoritative than the other? Neither is evidence. To address your earlier point angled parking spaces are an exception for the front in parking at my company. In our garage the one row of angled spaces are front in parking for the larger rigs the horizontal spaces(3 rows) are all back in parking. I did a little googling to see if I can find any raw data that’s directly relevant, all I’m really finding is editorials and I don’t know how long I want to invest and what is perceived to be a “tastes great vs less filling” type argument. As far as me believing this to be a settled matter AFAIK back in parking is nearly universal in the company driver world and that is good enough for me. ---
**Author:** ![Haberdash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Haberdash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Haberdash)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-perverse-motivation-of-back-in-parkers/716793/169 "2015-04-07T15:09:54Z")
> [@Bruce\_Wayne](#): > > AFAIK back in parking is nearly universal in the company driver world and that is good enough for me. Sure, the companies who employ first world risk mitigation specialists and are liable for big payouts whenever there’s an accident universally tell their employees who drive for a career to back in … but the government of Bahrain says otherwise, so according to DSeid it’s all a big wash. ---
**Author:** ![Sciency](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@Sciency](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sciency)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-perverse-motivation-of-back-in-parkers/716793/170 "2015-04-07T15:13:22Z")
Well, they think they will come out faster. But I agree, it’s not worth it in the end since they have to spend more time parking it and they slow down everyone in the process. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-perverse-motivation-of-back-in-parkers/716793/171 "2015-04-07T15:15:05Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > The irony of the Creationist non-sequitur being great given the insistence these folk are having on accepting revealed truth… > > The rest y’all are free to accept on faith and proselytize to the unconverted infidel hordes all you like. Enjoy. You head-in based on impeccable logic; those of us who back-in are ignorant reliers on faith. :dubious: I guess you fit in real well in post-rational Amerika. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-perverse-motivation-of-back-in-parkers/716793/172 "2015-04-07T16:26:02Z")
> [@Sciency](#): > > Well, they think they will come out faster. But I agree, it’s not worth it in the end since they have to spend more time parking it and they slow down everyone in the process. But as has been shown in this thread it’s safer and overall faster to back in park. Do you care if everyone is slowed down pulling into a spot versus pulling out of a spot? Cars are waiting either way. ---
**Author:** ![fstbk1968](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3bc359/32.png) [@fstbk1968](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fstbk1968)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-perverse-motivation-of-back-in-parkers/716793/173 "2015-04-07T16:40:38Z")
> [@Haberdash](#): > > 1. The VAST majority of parking lots are in fact not designed and are indeed “haphazardly thrown together by [construction workers who are not professional architects] with a striping machine and not subject to serious zoning regulations.” I have no opinion on whether they are “idiots” are not, though you apparently do. > > 2. The zoning rules mandating a ratio of parking spaces for new construction are, again, only applicable to the downtowns of a few cities, are only applicable to NEW construction, are already falling out of favor as urban planners realize they don’t serve the purpose they intended to, and are concerned with the NUMBER of parking spaces, not their orientation. > > There is an entire industry devoted to renting parking lot stripers. Writing “stripe the parking lot” into the subcontract for the paver is indeed how 99 out of 100 parking lots you use get marked. There just isn’t some huge industry of parking lot line designers applying evidence and forethought to this problem. If there were, the fact that they choose to use perpendicular parking wouldn’t mean much, since what we are talking about is the issue of backing into a perpendicular space correctly, not that perpendicular spaces should be abolished. I don’t know where you are from but I can tell you, as someone who has gone through the design and build process for paved parking lots (commercial and private), all are subject to design review by local agencies. Part of that review includes the layout of spaces and flow of traffic, not just capacity. I have never encountered the situation that you have described where the stripers put down whatever the hell the feel like. I am based out of the Chicago area so my experience includes the city and the surrounding suburbs. Not intending to pick a fight; just fighting ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![Haberdash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Haberdash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Haberdash)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-perverse-motivation-of-back-in-parkers/716793/174 "2015-04-07T16:54:32Z")
Again, I understand that certain large cities have parking lot regulations; most places do not. Does Chicago say anything about reverse angled parking? ---
**Author:** ![Doug\_K](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b5ac83/32.png) [@Doug\_K](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doug_K)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-perverse-motivation-of-back-in-parkers/716793/175 "2015-04-07T17:26:17Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > But as has been shown in this thread it’s safer and overall faster to back in park. Do you care if everyone is slowed down pulling into a spot versus pulling out of a spot? Cars are waiting either way. Claimed, but not shown. There has been no data shown to back that claim up. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-perverse-motivation-of-back-in-parkers/716793/176 "2015-04-07T17:26:27Z")
At the parking garage at work, I’d say about 25% of the workers back in to their spaces. Not only does it cause people to wait on them, but the action can be misleading and as a result dangerous, because in order to back into a space on **one** side of the aisle, you have to start by driving towards the **other** side. A case in point: this morning, I was following a SUV that seemed like he was pulling frontwards into an empty space on the left, and as he did so, I swung to the right to go behind him while he was pulling into that space, since there was plenty of room to do that. Next thing I know, I see his backup lights to my left. I had to lean on the horn to make sure he didn’t back up into me. ---
**Author:** ![Haberdash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Haberdash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Haberdash)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-perverse-motivation-of-back-in-parkers/716793/177 "2015-04-07T17:32:06Z")
Again, no one is excusing not using turn signals. If he didn’t use one then he’s an idiot. If he did have his right blinker on and you “assumed” he was turning to the left, then you’re an idiot. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it’s the former. Now, about those front-in parkers who back up into traffic which they can’t see and won’t expect them, as opposed to the people on the left lane of the back-in parker using signals and common sense? ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-perverse-motivation-of-back-in-parkers/716793/178 "2015-04-07T17:39:14Z")
> [@kaltkalt](#): > > In my apartment’s parking garage . . . . You chose to live in an apartment? That’s the residential equivalent of taping a _Kick Me_ sign on your back. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-perverse-motivation-of-back-in-parkers/716793/179 "2015-04-07T17:42:29Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > But as has been shown in this thread it’s safer and overall faster to back in park. Do you care if everyone is slowed down pulling into a spot versus pulling out of a spot? Cars are waiting either way. While I frequently have to wait while a car backs _into_ a space, I rarely have to wait more than a fraction of that time while someone backs _out_. So just based on personal experience, I’m bothered more by the folks backing in. Some ideas on what may be happening here (and I apologize if others have brought them up: I confess I haven’t read all 175 posts before I noticed this thread): 1. Cars are designed primarily for driving forward. Sure, you can back your car up, but it’s harder to do so with nearly as much precision. So you can pull into a parking space forward a lot more quickly and easily than you can do it backward. 2. When you’re backing **out** of a parking space, the need for precision is a great deal less than when you’re backing **in** , because you’re backing out into a much larger space. Once you’ve ascertained that it’s safe to back out, you just do it in one motion. (And while you’re still ascertaining that, you aren’t so far out that people can’t get by you, so you’re not holding anyone up.) One query not related to this point but another one that’s come up here, about being able to see better while you’re pulling out of a parking space if you’ve backed in: if you’re driving, how much nearer is your head to your front bumper than to your rear bumper? Without taking the elevator downstairs, walking out to my car, and pulling out a tape measure, I’d say the difference is pretty small in the case of my 2000 Accord: my head is near the back of my front window, so just a little in front of the middle of the passenger compartment. And the hood in front of me is a bit longer than the trunk hood behind me. I’m guessing that when I drive, my head is pretty close to the midpoint of the car’s length. It’s hard to see why I’d get much of a visibility edge by pulling out frontwards. But I may have that wrong, since I’m just guesstimating here, and even if I’m right, YCMV (your car may vary). So I’m kinda curious how that works out overall. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-perverse-motivation-of-back-in-parkers/716793/180 "2015-04-07T18:49:37Z")
> [@Haberdash](#): > > Again, no one is excusing not using turn signals. If he didn’t use one then he’s an idiot. > > If he did have his right blinker on and you “assumed” he was turning to the left, then you’re an idiot. > > I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it’s the former. Good, because that was the case. But part of the problem is that there really is no appropriate turn signal for turning one way then backing up the other way, anyway. If I put on my right blinker and then aim my car to the left, I’d expect the driver behind me to think I was confused. > [@](#): > > Now, about those front-in parkers who back up into traffic which they can’t see and won’t expect them, as opposed to the people on the left lane of the back-in parker using signals and common sense? “the people on the left lane of the back-in parker”?? Can I ask for an English translation? But “about those front-in parkers who back up into traffic which they can’t see and won’t expect them” - if I’m parked between two sedans, I can see just fine. But let’s say my Accord sedan’s parked between two SUVs or minivans. I pull out gradually, a foot at a time. When I’ve pulled out an entire foot, (a) nobody’s gonna hit my rear end unless they’re speeding right along the edge of the other parked cars, and (b) they can see a car with its backup lights on, with its rear end sticking out by a foot. So the part about “traffic which…won’t expect them” is FALSE. Now, the part about “traffic which they can’t see.” Same would be true to the same degree going forward: I’m just about at the midpoint of my car, lengthwise, since the engine hood is substantially longer than the trunk hood. Frontward or backward, I’ve got to pull out in increments until I can see the traffic lane as a whole, and then pull out when it’s clear. But until I can do that, _I’m not holding up anyone_, because there’s plenty of room to get around me. The time-consuming part of backing _out_ of a parking space takes place while I’m mostly in the parking space, with room to get around me. The time-consuming part of backing _into_ a parking space takes place with the driver out in the middle of things, hogging the traffic lanes. Selfish assholes, all of them. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-perverse-motivation-of-back-in-parkers/716793.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-perverse-motivation-of-back-in-parkers/716793.md?page=10)