The perverse motivation of back-in parkers?

[running_coach]

@Mr_Shine

Parking forwards and leaving backwards is simpler and more effective. Haberdash is a maniacal zealot.

Both courier services I drove required backing in when possible, mandated by their insurance.
I could back in faster than a typical driver could park forward.

[Acsenray]

I used to be an anti-back-in parker, but I’ve come to realize it’s much much safer to be pulling forward out of a space when you’re leaving rather than backing out.

[Bullitt]

@Acsenray

I used to be an anti-back-in parker, but I’ve come to realize it’s much much safer to be pulling forward out of a space when you’re leaving rather than backing out.

And it’s also much safer backing into the parking space after you’ve been able to tell that it’s clear. That’s safer than backing out into vehicle and pedestrian traffic.

[Chimera]

I back up into my spot in my underground garage. I’m between two pillars and it’s easier for me to turn left just past my spot, then back right in. Turning directly into the spot was annoying.

[puzzlegal]

@Haberdash

The issue has a factual answer, though. Back-in parking is safer and easier. Every place that has implemented it has found this to be statistically true.

Seeing the moving, unpredictable traffic flow while driving forward out of the space is safer than reversing into it blind in order to avoid reversing into the unmoving, inanimate curb.

There is no “time savings in letting the line move” when you have to stop the line to reverse in either one direction or another.

It’s a perfect factual answer. Head-in parking is objectively inferior and less safe.

In most cases, yes

@running_coach

Both courier services I drove required backing in when possible, mandated by their insurance.
I could back in faster than a typical driver could park forward.

My personal auto insurance doesn’t mandate anything on this topic, but it does send me reminders from time to time that it’s safest to pull through (in perpendicular parking) so you never have to back up, and if that’s not possible, it’s safer to back in and drive straight out, so you can see the traffic/pedestrians/etc. as you exit the spot.

[NinthAcolyte]

Confirming that many large fleets require backing-in. I worked for the US Postal Service (maintenance, not carrier) and drove plenty of Postal trucks. They require that you back into parking spaces whenever possible. This is because you’re backing into a space that you already know for certain is empty. If you pulled in nose-first to the parking space, when it came time to leave you’ve be backing out into traffic, where who-knows-what could be going on.

To this day, if I CAN back in without holding up traffic, I do so.

[UltraVires]

@puzzlegal

In most cases, yes
My personal auto insurance doesn’t mandate anything on this topic, but it does send me reminders from time to time that it’s safest to pull through (in perpendicular parking) so you never have to back up,…

So long as the lot isn’t crowded. I’ve almost had several head on collisions trying to pull into a parking spot when some guy is trying that trick from the other side.

[Doug_K]

@Haberdash

The issue has a factual answer, though. Back-in parking is safer and easier. Every place that has implemented it has found this to be statistically true.

Where are these statistics? I have never seen an article claiming that back-in parking was safer that had any hard numbers. The closest I have been able to find is on kidsandcars.org, which has numbers for fatal rollover accidents. But these numbers do not seem to support the idea that backing in is safer. 806 fatal accidents from 2006 to 2010, of which 448 were backover and 358 were frontover. Given the fact cited previously that fewer than 6% of cars in parking lots back into spaces, the number of backover accidents is much lower than would be expected if the risks were equal.
The numbers needed would be times or percentages over a given period of time that:

People backed out of spaces with no accident.*
People backed out resulting in an accident.
People backed into spaces with no accident*
People backed in resulting in an accident
People pulled out forward with no accident*
People pulled out forward with accident.
People pulled in forward with no accident*
Times people pulled in forward with accident.

• One of the biggest problems I’ve seen with these discussions is confirmation bias. No one counts the misses. Only the hits.

[russian_heel]

@Haberdash

Again, I question the logic – you’re just creating more situations where someone has to wait for the person to reverse out of the parking space later. No time saved, no more politeness, but huge increase in risk.

From a holistic whole world point of view maybe.

But if you read the OP the gripe has nothing to do with the perceived benefits to society as a whole of back-in parking after the fact, only the annoyance of the OP and other drivers, in his/her situation, in waiting for the back in parker who does take more time to enter the spot than head first.

That said Im not convinced by the statistics it is a safer method, every time, or even faster, overall. I bet if I put two equally skilled drivers, put them in the same exact skills, and asked one to back in and then pull out, and the other vice versa, 10 times, with $1000 on the line, the pull in and back out driver will win the money because it requires more skill and human calculation to back in between 2 parking lanes/vehicles than to back out where there only obstacles are pedestrians and other vehicles, the odds of which being in the path of the vehicle unknowingly are slim. I( would even go as far as to argue that even if it WAS safer to back in—pull out, since we are looking at overall value to society, the time lost to society would not be worth the microscopic safety edge, anyway.

Think about parallel parking. You signal, the car behind you stops without overlapping the space

Sometimes.

, you pull into the space in reverse in one motion.

This, in a world where every driver is perfect, and the cars parked in front of and in back of the proposed parking sport are sufficiently spaced for the parallel parker to do so in one motion.

This is what every parking lot should be, too.

Of course, the above works on the street unless the car behind you is some rube from the suburbs who doesn’t know what it means to flip on your turn signal in the middle of the street and blocks the space, or you don’t know how to reverse properly, of course – but the rubes and the bad drivers are the ones pulling head-first into perpendicular parking who we need to stamp out.

How? Mass executions?

What we really need is to replace more on-street parallel spots and every angled spot in the world with back-in angled parking – just like it’s nearly impossible to park in a standard angled spot back-in, it’s nearly impossible to park in one of these spots front-in. This will force everyone to learn to drive in reverse like they should have when they got their permit at age 15.

http://www.hampdenhappenings.org/HCC_WEB/Zoning_Pdf/RAP/San_Francisco.pdf

Good luck with that, Im on your side with the everyone backs in angled parking spots idea. Until every parking lot meets these standards, Im not 100% convinced backing in is always the best method for 95% of nonparallel parking situations.

[septimus]

@Doug_K

The numbers needed would be times or percentages over a given period of time that:

People backed out of spaces with no accident.*
People backed out resulting in an accident.
People backed into spaces with no accident*
People backed in resulting in an accident
People pulled out forward with no accident*
People pulled out forward with accident.
People pulled in forward with no accident*
Times people pulled in forward with accident.

Aren’t you forgetting one, here in the land where teenagers are encouraged to pack heat?

People backed in shot in the head by someone who thinks only jackasses back in.

[tomndebb]

@Doug_K

Where are these statistics? I have never seen an article claiming that back-in parking was safer that had any hard numbers. The closest I have been able to find is on kidsandcars.org, which has numbers for fatal rollover accidents. But these numbers do not seem to support the idea that backing in is safer. 806 fatal accidents from 2006 to 2010, of which 448 were backover and 358 were frontover. Given the fact cited previously that fewer than 6% of cars in parking lots back into spaces, the number of backover accidents is much lower than would be expected if the risks were equal.

Actually, these numbers do support backing in. The backovers are nearly all caused when someone is backing out of a spot into which they previously, obliviously slid going forward. The frontovers tend to occur in people’s own driveways where the kids might be playing out of sight of the driver, not in paring lots.

@russian_heel

How? Mass executions?

Well, we’ll give 'em a trial, and then we’ll hang 'em.

[Bullitt]

One thing I don’t understand, is in a parking lot where two spots are open “nose-to-nose” (and the parking spaces are not diagonally fish boned but are perpendicular to the parking lot aisles), when a pull-in parker pulls into the nearer space and does not continue into, and ultimately park in, the farther space.

If they did that, they would have all of the advantages of backing in / pulling out, with none of the disadvantages! What’s up with that??!!??!! Morons. And yet I see that all the time.

[Haberdash]

@russian_heel

How? Mass executions?

1. Encouraging people to learn to drive in reverse by transforming angled and parallel spaces to reverse-angled.

2. Laws against “mandatory head-in parking” in structures.

3. Laws and parking lot policies requiring back-in parking, to whatever extent such laws are possible.

4. I don’t particularly care for the civil liberties implications of mass police license-plate scanning, but if it’s going to happen, all states should require front license plates so that it doesn’t become an excuse for mandated head-in parking.

[Haberdash]

@Bullitt

One thing I don’t understand, is in a parking lot where two spots are open “nose-to-nose” (and the parking spaces are not diagonally fish boned but are perpendicular to the parking lot aisles), when a pull-in parker pulls into the nearer space and does not continue into, and ultimately park in, the farther space.

If they did that, they would have all of the advantages of backing in / pulling out, with none of the disadvantages! What’s up with that??!!??!! Morons. And yet I see that all the time.

They actually get viscerally uncomfortable by the notion of being parked back-in. Just look at the first post in this thread. It’s a maniacal religious belief and it’s wrong.

[excavating_for_a_mind]

@jtgain

So long as the lot isn’t crowded. I’ve almost had several head on collisions trying to pull into a parking spot when some guy is trying that trick from the other side.

Probably because you were going head-in…

[DSeid]

@Haberdash

1. Encouraging people to learn to drive in reverse by transforming angled and parallel spaces to reverse-angled.

2. Laws against “mandatory head-in parking” in structures.

3. Laws and parking lot policies requiring back-in parking, to whatever extent such laws are possible.

4. I don’t particularly care for the civil liberties implications of mass police license-plate scanning, but if it’s going to happen, all states should require front license plates so that it doesn’t become an excuse for mandated head-in parking.

I’ve seen some lots with signs prohibiting backing in.

@Bullitt

One thing I don’t understand, is in a parking lot where two spots are open “nose-to-nose” (and the parking spaces are not diagonally fish boned but are perpendicular to the parking lot aisles), when a pull-in parker pulls into the nearer space and does not continue into, and ultimately park in, the farther space.

If they did that, they would have all of the advantages of backing in / pulling out, with none of the disadvantages! What’s up with that??!!??!! Morons. And yet I see that all the time.

Mark me as another person almost slammed into by someone doing that as I was pulling into the space from the correct side and once almost taking my door off as I opened it having no idea that he wasn’t just pulling into the correct (his side) space and was coming into mine.

Thing is safety requires that the other drivers/parkers can reasonably predict what you are going to do. If you are driving/parking in a manner that is clearly minority manner for the country then you represent the potential hazard.

Personally I see backing up into a space between two other cars as more time consuming and requiring caution as backing out into a bigger space.

[Haberdash]

@DSeid

Thing is safety requires that the other drivers/parkers can reasonably predict what you are going to do.

You cannot reasonably predict which people will back up blind into the flow of traffic. A person backing up blind into traffic cannot reasonably predict anything about the traffic he can’t see. That’s the problem.

If you are driving/parking in a manner that is clearly minority manner for the country then you represent the potential hazard.

There was a time when most people believed the sun revolved around the Earth. Head-in parking makes about as much sense, regardless of the fact that many people on the road can’t drive.

[QuickSilver]

@kaltkalt

That’s crap. Like I said, if you think it’s easier or faster to get out then that means you think it’s harder and slower to get out parked normally (front in) - if that’s the case your driver’s license should be torn apart and you should never be allowed to drive again. Shouldn’t even be allowed to ride a bike.

Allow me to offer a succinct and reasoned counter-argument:

You’re a fucking idiot and a shit driver.

My cite: Everybody here thinks so too.

[Bullitt]

@DSeid

I’ve seen some lots with signs prohibiting backing in.

There are some but they are very few. In those lots, I nose in.

@DSeid

Mark me as another person almost slammed into by someone doing that as I was pulling into the space from the correct side and once almost taking my door off as I opened it having no idea that he wasn’t just pulling into the correct (his side) space and was coming into mine.

“Slammed”? What were they doing, 55? Or were you not looking at the entire situation, seeing both spots open, and assuming that nobody was going to come in from the other side?

“Correct” side? Please tell me where the laws or rules of the road define this.

And I don’t think I’m the first to tell you this, but when you open your car door and there’s a space next to you, open carefully. And always look.

Basic safety rules, universally applied.

@DSeid

Thing is safety requires that the other drivers/parkers can reasonably predict what you are going to do. If you are driving/parking in a manner that is clearly minority manner for the country then you represent the potential hazard.

Assume - that is what you are doing, assuming everyone behaves and drives the same way, and while you are not looking and being observant. That’s a dangerous way to live and drive, and that makes you the safety hazard.

@DSeid

Personally I see backing up into a space between two other cars as more time consuming and requiring caution as backing out into a bigger space.

That’s your choice, but in light of the data supporting overall safety by backing in, then if you choose to pull in then you either
(a) don’t have the skill needed to back in, or
(b) are choosing to be ignorant, or
(c) don’t want to be bothered by backing in.
If it’s something else, please share.

[Lumpy]

I drive a compact car and far too often I find myself parking in the canyon between two SUVs/full-size pickups. It’s much easier to watch for oncoming traffic if I’m facing forward when pulling out. But I only back in when traffic permits- otherwise I’m likely to have someone behind me pull too far forward and not leave me enough room to back.