Here’s DC Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton showing all of you losers how to park.
If it is such a settled issue why are lots with angled spaces designed with head-in parking as standard? One would think that something that was so settled would be reflected in parking lot design standards …
It’s understood that a majority of Americans are stupid drivers who do stupid things like park head-in. There’s no reason to think that a majority of people who paint parking lots won’t be the same way. We’ve seen how violently insane the head-in creationists get when challenged – not the lot owner’s problem, sadly.
Yesterday, I was going to brunch with some friends, and the restaurant is known for having very few parking spots. One car passed a spot, and the driver immediately behind him, pulled in to the space.
The “lead” car got out and started yelling at the driver who took the parking space, saying he’d intended to back into the spot. That’s really my only issue with back-in parkers. It makes parking lots more disorganized than they need be. (Granted, by very little)
You use a turn signal to show you plan to…turn…into the space.
If someone behind you disregards the turn signal, by all means, park right in front of them and take a long lunch.
What do you mean by “standard”? The vast majority of parking lots in this country are not angled. Angled spaces are not uncommon, but they are usually done for space-saving reasons, not for safety ones.
Reverse angle is replacing front angle and parallel on the street of many cities for both efficiency and safety reasons:
http://www.fellsprospect.org/ReverseangleparkingFAQ.html
In a parking lot, it doesn’t save space over perpendicular parking, but it does create a much higher level of safety by making front-in parking practically impossible.
I have to confess that I mostly pull in head first, just because I’m not used to the other way.
And when it’s time for a sudden, emergency evacuation, they’ll be ahead of you.
Not necessarily. Around here it’s about 50/50 whether all slots will be angled in the path of travel or only the right side slots. If it’s only the right side slots, the aisle has to be wider to allow two-way travel.
The issue is not who paints … it is who designs.
Now you are just being dense. Of parking lots with angled parking the angled parking are consistently for heads in parking. Yes, that could just be a concession to give the public what it wants, but again, if something was truly definitively “settled” as a safety issue then one would expect that standards in parking lot design would reflect the established settled science.
I am willing to believe it and honestly if it wasn’t that usually when I park in a lot I’m often wanting easy access to my back hatch to load up the car easily I’d consider attempting to train myself to rear in … so long as I didn’t have to make anyone wait on me … some of the arguments made here have been good ones (not all of them though!) … but “settled”? That does not seem supported by what has been presented.
There are a lot of decisions we make about cars that are not solely based on what’s safer. I don’t see how there’s any assumption to be made based on which way angled parking spaces are usually set up.
It’s manifestly obvious that backing out of a parking space is less safe than backing in.
Oh for prophet-or-savior-of-your-choice’s sake! “Manifestly obvious”? So much that is “manifestly obvious” is also completely wrong.
It may or may not be true that backing in is safer, but what a crapload to argue from that perspective.
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.
It would be nice if there were more studies. In the absence of those studies, since people aren’t going to just stop driving, we should use reason. The burden is on you to disprove the monumentally obvious statement that it is safer to drive when you can see all around you at all times, than to do any portion of your driving by jerking your vehicle into traffic you cannot see. Evidence trumps rationalization, but rationalization trumps “this is what everyone I know does.”
As for “parking lot designers” – only the most expensive and newest developments have designed parking lots. 99% of lots in the U.S. are in fact “designed” by a construction crew renting a striper machine for a day. There is no intent behind it.
Just for illustration - here’s one design standard as required by a governmental organization.
And no, lot designs need to be approved. They are tightly regulated by zoning laws (for example) not just “a construction crew renting a striper machine for a day”. Number of spaces, allowable angles, required lane space, etc.
No the burden of proof is not on one side more than the other of this discussion.
So you do in fact perform a substantial portion of your daily driving by barreling down the street with your eyes closed? Or are you just playing Shitty Parking Creationist’s Advocate?
Amazingly what is “obvious” to you is just as “obviously” the opposite to a large number of other people.
To me it is “obvious” that predictability of other drivers’ behavior is a key to safety in shared spaces … someone else thinks that adding unpredictability with a minority doing the unexpected helps enhance safety.
Honestly (again) I have found some of the arguments made to be cogent, but this “manifestly obvious” crap and claims of how “settled” it is, is just a steaming pile.
It is neither “obvious” nor “settled” that a minority backing in and cutting across creates enhanced safety for anyone.
Kingdom of Bahrain? Really?
Kingdom of Bahrain?
It should also be noted that the controversial practice of mandated parking spaces for new construction is
- only extant in a small number of urban cores
- already falling out of favor
- concerned solely with the number of parking spaces and not their orientation
Citing a zoning regulation from this irrelevant political movement as any sort of proof that the average American parking lot is consciously designed is misleading at best.
Yes, went with the first design standard to come up. You need more examples or just want to stick with people falsely claiming that parking lots are not designed but are just haphazardly thrown together by idiots with a striping machine and not subject to serious zoning regulations?
-
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.
-
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.
Okay, here’s a U.S. one. Not an urban core. Monroeville PA. (About 28K)