Backing into Parking Spots - What is the deal and why are so many more people doing it? (2 Viewers)

[Scoresman]

The person who is entitled is the one who is at the the front of a long line of cars on a busy street who suddenly throws on their reverse lights expecting everyone else to do the same so they can park.

Do you expect the person to just not park their car?

I expect them to find a spot that doesn't cause so many issues. Turn down a less busy street, find a parking garage, etc. Keep in mind I'm talking about a specific situation where someone is expecting a line of cars to move to accommodate them being able to park. Most people who end up in this situation realize that the parking spot in question isnt going to work out and move on, but occasionally, you get an entitled person who throws on his reverse lights and just sits waiting.

Same thing in a busy parking lot when someone throws on their reverse lights to back in expecting the line of cars behind them to somehow figure out how to get out of the way.

 

[Scoresman]

Also, I am bad at parallel parking, always have been. If I end up in that situation I move on and always seem to find a good spot somewhere.

 

[the moops]

Also, I am bad at parallel parking, always have been. If I end up in that situation I move on and always seem to find a good spot somewhere.

You must not live or travel to busy cities. Many times you pass up that parallel parking spot and you are driving around for 20 minutes trying to find another.

 

[Scoresman]

Also, I am bad at parallel parking, always have been. If I end up in that situation I move on and always seem to find a good spot somewhere.

You must not live or travel to busy cities. Many times you pass up that parallel parking spot and you are driving around for 20 minutes trying to find another.

I do this in downtown Portland. San Francisco before that. Not that difficult. It might require driving around a block or two or god forbid, using a parking garage. No big deal.

A lot of times there will be a decent spot to parallel into, but then I look in my rearview and if I see a line of cars behind me with no easy way for them to go around, I move on. Too many people are keen to just sit there with their reverse lights on, letting the people behind them figure out the mess of getting around them. If there's an open lane that is not backed up for people to use to go around, then it's fine.

 

[the moops]

Also, I am bad at parallel parking, always have been. If I end up in that situation I move on and always seem to find a good spot somewhere.

You must not live or travel to busy cities. Many times you pass up that parallel parking spot and you are driving around for 20 minutes trying to find another.

I do this in downtown Portland. San Francisco before that. Not that difficult. It might require driving around a block or two or god forbid, using a parking garage. No big deal.

A lot of times there will be a decent spot to parallel into, but then I look in my rearview and if I see a line of cars behind me with no easy way for them to go around, I move on. Too many people are keen to just sit there with their reverse lights on, letting the people behind them figure out the mess of getting around them. If there's an open lane that is not backed up for people to use to go around, then it's fine.

It takes 20 seconds to parallel park. If you are annoyed at someone taking an open parking spot at the expense of 20 seconds of your time, you are the problem. not the person parking

 

[Scoresman]

Also, I am bad at parallel parking, always have been. If I end up in that situation I move on and always seem to find a good spot somewhere.

You must not live or travel to busy cities. Many times you pass up that parallel parking spot and you are driving around for 20 minutes trying to find another.

I do this in downtown Portland. San Francisco before that. Not that difficult. It might require driving around a block or two or god forbid, using a parking garage. No big deal.

A lot of times there will be a decent spot to parallel into, but then I look in my rearview and if I see a line of cars behind me with no easy way for them to go around, I move on. Too many people are keen to just sit there with their reverse lights on, letting the people behind them figure out the mess of getting around them. If there's an open lane that is not backed up for people to use to go around, then it's fine.

It takes 20 seconds to parallel park. If you are annoyed at someone taking an open parking spot at the expense of 20 seconds of your time, you are the problem. not the person parking

Maybe I'm not explaining it well. It's not the 20 seconds. I'm not talking about situations where someone really does only take 20 seconds and I and others dont have to try and manuever around just so that they can park. Its the situation where someone puts on their reverse lights to parallel park when they have a line of cars behind them stopped with no easy way for those cars to go around.

This all came up because we were talking about specific situations where backing in or parallel parking probably shouldn't be done and this is one of those. Plenty of other situations where it's perfectly fine. Again, it's a situational awareness issue.

 

[bigbottom]

The person who is entitled is the one who is at the the front of a long line of cars on a busy street who suddenly throws on their reverse lights expecting everyone else to do the same so they can park.

Do you expect the person to just not park their car?

I expect them to find a spot that doesn't cause so many issues. Turn down a less busy street, find a parking garage, etc. Keep in mind I'm talking about a specific situation where someone is expecting a line of cars to move to accommodate them being able to park. Most people who end up in this situation realize that the parking spot in question isnt going to work out and move on, but occasionally, you get an entitled person who throws on his reverse lights and just sits waiting.

Same thing in a busy parking lot when someone throws on their reverse lights to back in expecting the line of cars behind them to somehow figure out how to get out of the way.

You put on your turn signal when you approach the open spot. If the car behind you nevertheless stays on your bumper as you position yourself at the front of the opening, that’s on them.

 

[Harry Manback]

I get the argument that is being had for backing into a spot in a parking lot, but how did parallel parking become part of the discussion?

Entitled people think others should cater to them.

I think I brought up parallel parking as another example of bad drivers trying to park. The person who is entitled is the one who is at the the front of a long line of cars on a busy street who suddenly throws on their reverse lights expecting everyone else to do the same so they can park. Or people who insist on parallel parking when they are terrible at it and require multiple attempts.

Again, I'm not against backing in or parallel parking in general. I'm against people lacking situational awareness in certain specific situations. These people also tend to be the people who are bad at parking in general.

I think most would agree the frustration comes when someone is bad at parallel parking. However, aside from use of the turn signal to show you are going to try and park, there is not much else you can do when this is the only parking option. I lived in a beach city for a long time and was really good at PP. Now? Sometimes not so much. But I am going to do it if that's the only choice. I am not going to forgo a spot in the hopes that I find an easier one to get into or that no one is waiting.

Sure, the inference is that people shouldn't parallel park though.

The entire argument from one side is that backing into spots "wastes people's time" and shouldn't be done. Then the connection to parallel parking was made, hard to interpret it as anything other than "people shouldn't parallel park".

 

[Harry Manback]

The person who is entitled is the one who is at the the front of a long line of cars on a busy street who suddenly throws on their reverse lights expecting everyone else to do the same so they can park.

Do you expect the person to just not park their car?

I expect them to find a spot that doesn't cause so many issues. Turn down a less busy street, find a parking garage, etc. Keep in mind I'm talking about a specific situation where someone is expecting a line of cars to move to accommodate them being able to park. Most people who end up in this situation realize that the parking spot in question isnt going to work out and move on, but occasionally, you get an entitled person who throws on his reverse lights and just sits waiting.

Same thing in a busy parking lot when someone throws on their reverse lights to back in expecting the line of cars behind them to somehow figure out how to get out of the way.

You put on your turn signal when you approach the open spot. If the car behind you nevertheless stays on your bumper as you position yourself at the front of the opening, that’s on them.

It sounds like this is the situation he often finds himself in, but surely it's a "them problem"

 

[Scoresman]

The person who is entitled is the one who is at the the front of a long line of cars on a busy street who suddenly throws on their reverse lights expecting everyone else to do the same so they can park.

Do you expect the person to just not park their car?

I expect them to find a spot that doesn't cause so many issues. Turn down a less busy street, find a parking garage, etc. Keep in mind I'm talking about a specific situation where someone is expecting a line of cars to move to accommodate them being able to park. Most people who end up in this situation realize that the parking spot in question isnt going to work out and move on, but occasionally, you get an entitled person who throws on his reverse lights and just sits waiting.

Same thing in a busy parking lot when someone throws on their reverse lights to back in expecting the line of cars behind them to somehow figure out how to get out of the way.

You put on your turn signal when you approach the open spot. If the car behind you nevertheless stays on your bumper as you position yourself at the front of the opening, that’s on them.

True. A lot of people do not do this. Hence the pet peeve.

 

[Scoresman]

I get the argument that is being had for backing into a spot in a parking lot, but how did parallel parking become part of the discussion?

Entitled people think others should cater to them.

I think I brought up parallel parking as another example of bad drivers trying to park. The person who is entitled is the one who is at the the front of a long line of cars on a busy street who suddenly throws on their reverse lights expecting everyone else to do the same so they can park. Or people who insist on parallel parking when they are terrible at it and require multiple attempts.

Again, I'm not against backing in or parallel parking in general. I'm against people lacking situational awareness in certain specific situations. These people also tend to be the people who are bad at parking in general.

I think most would agree the frustration comes when someone is bad at parallel parking. However, aside from use of the turn signal to show you are going to try and park, there is not much else you can do when this is the only parking option. I lived in a beach city for a long time and was really good at PP. Now? Sometimes not so much. But I am going to do it if that's the only choice. I am not going to forgo a spot in the hopes that I find an easier one to get into or that no one is waiting.

Sure, the inference is that people shouldn't parallel park though.

The entire argument from one side is that backing into spots "wastes people's time" and shouldn't be done. Then the connection to parallel parking was made, hard to interpret it as anything other than "people shouldn't parallel park".

No, it is not. Reread, then try again.

 

[Harry Manback]

I get the argument that is being had for backing into a spot in a parking lot, but how did parallel parking become part of the discussion?

Entitled people think others should cater to them.

I think I brought up parallel parking as another example of bad drivers trying to park. The person who is entitled is the one who is at the the front of a long line of cars on a busy street who suddenly throws on their reverse lights expecting everyone else to do the same so they can park. Or people who insist on parallel parking when they are terrible at it and require multiple attempts.

Again, I'm not against backing in or parallel parking in general. I'm against people lacking situational awareness in certain specific situations. These people also tend to be the people who are bad at parking in general.

I think most would agree the frustration comes when someone is bad at parallel parking. However, aside from use of the turn signal to show you are going to try and park, there is not much else you can do when this is the only parking option. I lived in a beach city for a long time and was really good at PP. Now? Sometimes not so much. But I am going to do it if that's the only choice. I am not going to forgo a spot in the hopes that I find an easier one to get into or that no one is waiting.

Sure, the inference is that people shouldn't parallel park though.

The entire argument from one side is that backing into spots "wastes people's time" and shouldn't be done. Then the connection to parallel parking was made, hard to interpret it as anything other than "people shouldn't parallel park".

No, it is not. Reread, then try again.

You said, and I quote, "If you aren't good at it, and I'm riding your ***, find another spot"

 

[Scoresman]

I get the argument that is being had for backing into a spot in a parking lot, but how did parallel parking become part of the discussion?

Entitled people think others should cater to them.

I think I brought up parallel parking as another example of bad drivers trying to park. The person who is entitled is the one who is at the the front of a long line of cars on a busy street who suddenly throws on their reverse lights expecting everyone else to do the same so they can park. Or people who insist on parallel parking when they are terrible at it and require multiple attempts.

Again, I'm not against backing in or parallel parking in general. I'm against people lacking situational awareness in certain specific situations. These people also tend to be the people who are bad at parking in general.

I think most would agree the frustration comes when someone is bad at parallel parking. However, aside from use of the turn signal to show you are going to try and park, there is not much else you can do when this is the only parking option. I lived in a beach city for a long time and was really good at PP. Now? Sometimes not so much. But I am going to do it if that's the only choice. I am not going to forgo a spot in the hopes that I find an easier one to get into or that no one is waiting.

Sure, the inference is that people shouldn't parallel park though.

The entire argument from one side is that backing into spots "wastes people's time" and shouldn't be done. Then the connection to parallel parking was made, hard to interpret it as anything other than "people shouldn't parallel park".

No, it is not. Reread, then try again.

You said, and I quote, "If you aren't good at it, and I'm riding your ***, find another spot"

Link?

I said this.

"If you're not good at it, and you're on a busy street, find another spot. Be aware of your situation and how your actions are affecting others."

You conveniently left out the most important part.

I further clarified to mean situations where people behind you cant easily go around or just wait. Which I stand by. If you interpret being on a busy street with heavy, stop and go traffic as "riding your ***", there is no discussion to be had because you are interpreting it incorrectly.

 

[Chadstroma]

I witnessed some dude take FOREVER to park in a Costco parking lot for crying out loud. No one has bigger parking spaces than Costco (another positive to love Costco). He wasn't even backing in.... I could not imagine how long it would take him to back in.

 

[Harry Manback]

I get the argument that is being had for backing into a spot in a parking lot, but how did parallel parking become part of the discussion?

Entitled people think others should cater to them.

I think I brought up parallel parking as another example of bad drivers trying to park. The person who is entitled is the one who is at the the front of a long line of cars on a busy street who suddenly throws on their reverse lights expecting everyone else to do the same so they can park. Or people who insist on parallel parking when they are terrible at it and require multiple attempts.

Again, I'm not against backing in or parallel parking in general. I'm against people lacking situational awareness in certain specific situations. These people also tend to be the people who are bad at parking in general.

I think most would agree the frustration comes when someone is bad at parallel parking. However, aside from use of the turn signal to show you are going to try and park, there is not much else you can do when this is the only parking option. I lived in a beach city for a long time and was really good at PP. Now? Sometimes not so much. But I am going to do it if that's the only choice. I am not going to forgo a spot in the hopes that I find an easier one to get into or that no one is waiting.

Sure, the inference is that people shouldn't parallel park though.

The entire argument from one side is that backing into spots "wastes people's time" and shouldn't be done. Then the connection to parallel parking was made, hard to interpret it as anything other than "people shouldn't parallel park".

No, it is not. Reread, then try again.

You said, and I quote, "If you aren't good at it, and I'm riding your ***, find another spot"

Link?

I said this.

"If you're not good at it, and you're on a busy street, find another spot. Be aware of your situation and how your actions are affecting others."

You conveniently left out the most important part.

I further clarified to mean situations where people behind you cant easily go around or just wait. Which I stand by. If you interpret being on a busy street with heavy, stop and go traffic as "riding your ***", there is no discussion to be had because you are interpreting it incorrectly.

So busy streets shouldn’t have street parking? Or people who aren’t “good” enough at it don’t get to visit cities? Curious where you land.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

I witnessed some dude take FOREVER to park in a Costco parking lot for crying out loud. No one has bigger parking spaces than Costco (another positive to love Costco). He wasn't even backing in.... I could not imagine how long it would take him to back in.

It's not always a question of size, but I've witnessed countless drivers who obviously can't drive vehicles over a certain size. And yet there they are every day struggling to park something that is just too big for them.

 

[Scoresman]

I get the argument that is being had for backing into a spot in a parking lot, but how did parallel parking become part of the discussion?

Entitled people think others should cater to them.

I think I brought up parallel parking as another example of bad drivers trying to park. The person who is entitled is the one who is at the the front of a long line of cars on a busy street who suddenly throws on their reverse lights expecting everyone else to do the same so they can park. Or people who insist on parallel parking when they are terrible at it and require multiple attempts.

Again, I'm not against backing in or parallel parking in general. I'm against people lacking situational awareness in certain specific situations. These people also tend to be the people who are bad at parking in general.

I think most would agree the frustration comes when someone is bad at parallel parking. However, aside from use of the turn signal to show you are going to try and park, there is not much else you can do when this is the only parking option. I lived in a beach city for a long time and was really good at PP. Now? Sometimes not so much. But I am going to do it if that's the only choice. I am not going to forgo a spot in the hopes that I find an easier one to get into or that no one is waiting.

Sure, the inference is that people shouldn't parallel park though.

The entire argument from one side is that backing into spots "wastes people's time" and shouldn't be done. Then the connection to parallel parking was made, hard to interpret it as anything other than "people shouldn't parallel park".

No, it is not. Reread, then try again.

You said, and I quote, "If you aren't good at it, and I'm riding your ***, find another spot"

Link?

I said this.

"If you're not good at it, and you're on a busy street, find another spot. Be aware of your situation and how your actions are affecting others."

You conveniently left out the most important part.

I further clarified to mean situations where people behind you cant easily go around or just wait. Which I stand by. If you interpret being on a busy street with heavy, stop and go traffic as "riding your ***", there is no discussion to be had because you are interpreting it incorrectly.

So busy streets shouldn’t have street parking? Or people who aren’t “good” enough at it don’t get to visit cities? Curious where you land.

The real issue is lack of driving skills and situational awareness. Yes, there are certain situation where you maybe should forgo that nice parking spot. You seem to be interpreting this in terms of absolutes like "busy street should not have street parking". I'm not saying that at all.

In my situation, I know I am not the best at parallel parking so I'm super aware if I am going to try and park in such a spot, there is no one behind me. Common courtesy.

 

[Chadstroma]

I witnessed some dude take FOREVER to park in a Costco parking lot for crying out loud. No one has bigger parking spaces than Costco (another positive to love Costco). He wasn't even backing in.... I could not imagine how long it would take him to back in.

It's not always a question of size, but I've witnessed countless drivers who obviously can't drive vehicles over a certain size. And yet there they are every day struggling to park something that is just too big for them.

It wasn't even a big vehicle.... a Chevy Volt.

 

[Harry Manback]

I get the argument that is being had for backing into a spot in a parking lot, but how did parallel parking become part of the discussion?

Entitled people think others should cater to them.

I think I brought up parallel parking as another example of bad drivers trying to park. The person who is entitled is the one who is at the the front of a long line of cars on a busy street who suddenly throws on their reverse lights expecting everyone else to do the same so they can park. Or people who insist on parallel parking when they are terrible at it and require multiple attempts.

Again, I'm not against backing in or parallel parking in general. I'm against people lacking situational awareness in certain specific situations. These people also tend to be the people who are bad at parking in general.

I think most would agree the frustration comes when someone is bad at parallel parking. However, aside from use of the turn signal to show you are going to try and park, there is not much else you can do when this is the only parking option. I lived in a beach city for a long time and was really good at PP. Now? Sometimes not so much. But I am going to do it if that's the only choice. I am not going to forgo a spot in the hopes that I find an easier one to get into or that no one is waiting.

Sure, the inference is that people shouldn't parallel park though.

The entire argument from one side is that backing into spots "wastes people's time" and shouldn't be done. Then the connection to parallel parking was made, hard to interpret it as anything other than "people shouldn't parallel park".

No, it is not. Reread, then try again.

You said, and I quote, "If you aren't good at it, and I'm riding your ***, find another spot"

Link?

I said this.

"If you're not good at it, and you're on a busy street, find another spot. Be aware of your situation and how your actions are affecting others."

You conveniently left out the most important part.

I further clarified to mean situations where people behind you cant easily go around or just wait. Which I stand by. If you interpret being on a busy street with heavy, stop and go traffic as "riding your ***", there is no discussion to be had because you are interpreting it incorrectly.

So busy streets shouldn’t have street parking? Or people who aren’t “good” enough at it don’t get to visit cities? Curious where you land.

The real issue is lack of driving skills and situational awareness. Yes, there are certain situation where you maybe should forgo that nice parking spot. You seem to be interpreting this in terms of absolutes like "busy street should not have street parking". I'm not saying that at all.

In my situation, I know I am not the best at parallel parking so I'm super aware if I am going to try and park in such a spot, there is no one behind me. Common courtesy.

I'm interpreting it as city streets are almost always busy and often the only spots are street spots. It seems you feel if people aren't up to your driving standards they should suffer and either pay for parking elsewhere and/or walk, so you don't have to be inconvenienced 30 seconds.

 

[Harry Manback]

Similarly, despite the proven safety benefits of backing into spots, you don't care if it costs you 30 seconds of waiting.

 

[Scoresman]

I get the argument that is being had for backing into a spot in a parking lot, but how did parallel parking become part of the discussion?

Entitled people think others should cater to them.

I think I brought up parallel parking as another example of bad drivers trying to park. The person who is entitled is the one who is at the the front of a long line of cars on a busy street who suddenly throws on their reverse lights expecting everyone else to do the same so they can park. Or people who insist on parallel parking when they are terrible at it and require multiple attempts.

Again, I'm not against backing in or parallel parking in general. I'm against people lacking situational awareness in certain specific situations. These people also tend to be the people who are bad at parking in general.

I think most would agree the frustration comes when someone is bad at parallel parking. However, aside from use of the turn signal to show you are going to try and park, there is not much else you can do when this is the only parking option. I lived in a beach city for a long time and was really good at PP. Now? Sometimes not so much. But I am going to do it if that's the only choice. I am not going to forgo a spot in the hopes that I find an easier one to get into or that no one is waiting.

Sure, the inference is that people shouldn't parallel park though.

The entire argument from one side is that backing into spots "wastes people's time" and shouldn't be done. Then the connection to parallel parking was made, hard to interpret it as anything other than "people shouldn't parallel park".

No, it is not. Reread, then try again.

You said, and I quote, "If you aren't good at it, and I'm riding your ***, find another spot"

Link?

I said this.

"If you're not good at it, and you're on a busy street, find another spot. Be aware of your situation and how your actions are affecting others."

You conveniently left out the most important part.

I further clarified to mean situations where people behind you cant easily go around or just wait. Which I stand by. If you interpret being on a busy street with heavy, stop and go traffic as "riding your ***", there is no discussion to be had because you are interpreting it incorrectly.

So busy streets shouldn’t have street parking? Or people who aren’t “good” enough at it don’t get to visit cities? Curious where you land.

The real issue is lack of driving skills and situational awareness. Yes, there are certain situation where you maybe should forgo that nice parking spot. You seem to be interpreting this in terms of absolutes like "busy street should not have street parking". I'm not saying that at all.

In my situation, I know I am not the best at parallel parking so I'm super aware if I am going to try and park in such a spot, there is no one behind me. Common courtesy.

I'm interpreting it as city streets are almost always busy and often the only spots are street spots. It seems you feel if people aren't up to your driving standards they should suffer and either pay for parking elsewhere and/or walk, so you don't have to be inconvenienced 30 seconds.

Then you're still interpreting wrong. It has nothing to do with my driving standards. It has to do with common courtesy. Expecting a line of cars behind you to all back up in unison so that you can have your perfect little parking spot is unreasonable to me. But I see it enough where I've lived to have mentioned it.

Don't tell me a line of people backing up to allow someone to parallel park is a safe situation on a busy street.

Yet some people will just sit there with their reverse lights on expecting everyone else to figure it out.

Again, I'm not just talking about "busy streets" in general. I later clarified to mean situations where people cant easily go around and the only option is for everyone to backup. If there is an empty lane to use to go around, then no problem.

 

[Gally]

Don't tell me a line of people backing up to allow someone to parallel park is a safe situation on a busy street.

People shouldn't be that close that they have to back up when the only way to park on the street spot is to parallel park. This is much different then cruising a parking lot and going past a spot so you then have to back in. There are other ways to park in a parking lot but there is really only one way to parallel park and that requires going past the spot and backing in. I see these two scenarios as vastly different with respect to the courtesy card.

 

[Scoresman]

Don't tell me a line of people backing up to allow someone to parallel park is a safe situation on a busy street.

People shouldn't be that close that they have to back up when the only way to park on the street spot is to parallel park. This is much different then cruising a parking lot and going past a spot so you then have to back in. There are other ways to park in a parking lot but there is really only one way to parallel park and that requires going past the spot and backing in. I see these two scenarios as vastly different with respect to the courtesy card.

In general I agree, but sometimes traffic is bad enough that people are bunched up, or its near a stoplight. Sometimes by the time the guy has slowed down, stopped and put his reverse lights on, you're already too close and may need to back up. I've even seen it where people are at a stoplight for a few seconds, then a person ahead all of a sudden decides he wants to park in an adjacent empty space, and expected the cars behind him to backup.

 

[Terminalxylem]

I drive a company owned vehicle as my daily driver. If I have an accident in a parking lot while operating my vehicle in reverse, then I no longer have a company vehicle. Sorry if I'm inconveniencing you for 5 seconds while I back into a parking spot, but I'm not risking it...

1 out of 4 vehicle accidents are caused by someone driving in reverse/backing up. Every car is equipped with a back-up camera these days, and we as a society place way too much reliance on them as the sole reversing tool. Nobody turns their head or knows how to use mirrors anymore.

OK, but roughly 3 in 4 pull forward to park. Are the number of accidents backing out more than 3 times those pulling out of a space? How many accidents occur backing into a space, versus pulling in?

What is the breakdown of the other 3/4?

I doubt you can find a statistic that shows what % of vehicle accidents are specifically caused by someone backing into a parking space. There are a zillion reasons why vehicle accidents occur. You're trying to argue semantics instead of acknowledging the obvious.

What's more dangerous? Backing up into an area where pedestrians are walking while staring at their phones, other cars are driving, shopping carts are being pushed, etc? Or backing into an empty area without all those things present? And what's more dangerous, operating your car in forward gear, where you have a clear view of everything directly in front of you, or operating in reverse, where you have the car itself blocking your view, and you're relying on mirrors and cameras and twisting your body/head around to see? These aren't trick questions...

I’m not arguing there’s no safety benefit to backing… I just don’t think it’s as big a deal as some of you are making it out to be. Purely anecdotal, of course, based on driving and being a passenger in cars for decades, parking without incident.

I asked for specific data in response to @Harry Manback’s “far greater rate” of “property damage and bodily harm.” Surely he should be able to quantify this assertion?

25% of accidents in parking lots are from backing up

Parking lot accidents: statistics, causes, and liability - MyParkingSign Blog

One of the major reasons behind parking lot accidents is the false sense of security motorists and pedestrians feel.

www.myparkingsign.com

What accounts for the other 75%?

How does that percentage compare to accidents backing in? Pulling out?

Keep in mind, about 3/4 of people pull in/back out, versus backing in, so you’d expect backing out to cause 3 times more accidents than pulling out a priori.

What we really need is a per event comparison, pull in + back out vs. the alternative. Can’t really derive that from your link, but from the NHTSA table, it looks like fatal accidents moving forward are just as common as those in reverse.

Half of the non-traffic fatalities were backing vehicles, which can safely be presumed to be backing out of spots. The rest were accidents involving driverless vehicles (presumably someone forgot to put it in park) or forward moving. I think it's safe to assume that the forward moving fatalities were not pulling out of parking spots as well.

25% of all accidents in general in parking lots are caused from cars backing up, the rest are presumably moving forward, but again, not pulling out of spots likely driving down lanes and someone comes out between cars or a simple fender bender. I don't know why this is such a trigger for you or why it's so difficult to accept your preconceived notions are wrong. Weird.

These assumptions are not supported by your link.

While a majority of the backing fatalities may have occurred while backing out of a parking space, there certainly are other reasons for traveling in reverse, including backing in, or allowing someone else more space to do so.

Moreover, I bet many (most?) non-traffic fatalities happen backing out of driveways, which aren’t the focus of this conversation - people aren’t getting delayed waiting for parking in suburban driveways. The title of the thread asks specifically about backing into parking spaces, and the gripes are all about public lots.

And I don’t think it’s safe to assume pulling out never causes accidents, especially when one considers how much vision is obscured by the plethora of large vehicles, and distracted driving.

It’s not hard to imagine a scenario where backing in causes 8% of lot accidents, misjudging angles and sideswiping other parked vehicles, for example. If that’s the case, it’s roughly as likely to cause property damage as backing out. Unfortunately, the data isn’t that granular, so we can’t know. That’s my point.

I’m not triggered, we just disagree. If anything, it’s weird you struggle to recognize their are valid arguments on both sides of this conversation.

Cool. Describe to me the scenario where there is a fatality backing into a spot. Actually, don't bother. This is a laughable hill you're intent to die on.

Crowded lot with multiple parked cars. Kid running between parked cars enters empty space as vehicle backs in. Vehicle doesn’t notice child in time to avoid hitting them.

It’s the same mechanism a car backing out may kill someone. Sure, there are other ways, and higher likelihood of pedestrians in lanes between parked cars, but not hard to imagine the possibility, whether you’re pulling in/backing out, or vice versa.

Anyway, I’ve acknowledged repeatedly that backing out is riskier than backing in, so I don’t know why you’re even arguing this point.

I just think the absolute risk is small, small enough that I’m willing to accept it, in exchange for parking more efficiently.

 

[Terminalxylem]

I get the argument that is being had for backing into a spot in a parking lot, but how did parallel parking become part of the discussion?

Entitled people think others should cater to them.

This has definitely crossed my mind, as I’ve waited for someone to fumble their way reversing into a space.

 

[ChiefD]

You guys are pretty damn serious about your parking.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Also, I am bad at parallel parking, always have been. If I end up in that situation I move on and always seem to find a good spot somewhere.

You must not live or travel to busy cities. Many times you pass up that parallel parking spot and you are driving around for 20 minutes trying to find another.

I do this in downtown Portland. San Francisco before that. Not that difficult. It might require driving around a block or two or god forbid, using a parking garage. No big deal.

A lot of times there will be a decent spot to parallel into, but then I look in my rearview and if I see a line of cars behind me with no easy way for them to go around, I move on. Too many people are keen to just sit there with their reverse lights on, letting the people behind them figure out the mess of getting around them. If there's an open lane that is not backed up for people to use to go around, then it's fine.

It takes 20 seconds to parallel park. If you are annoyed at someone taking an open parking spot at the expense of 20 seconds of your time, you are the problem. not the person parking

OK, 20 seconds isn’t super long. How long until it crosses your threshold for inconsiderate?

 

[Terminalxylem]

You guys are pretty damn serious about your parking.

Not really, just a minor peeve.

Similar to the nearly universally reviled behavior of driving too slow in the left lane. But people are willing to accept the safety risks inherent in speeding, so anyone in the fast lane traveling slower best GTFO.

But I’m sure the “backing in is the only way!!!” safety guys never speed, and would welcome a few seconds of serenity in their left lane excursions

 

[Chadstroma]

You guys are pretty damn serious about your parking.

I am serious about my BP going up whenever it takes anyone way more time than it should to park or back out- either way. But to be fair, my BP will also go up when some knucklehead goes too fat through a parking lot. Why can't everyone just drive like me?

 

[Navin Johnson]

You guys are pretty damn serious about your parking.

Not really, just a minor peeve.

Similar to the nearly universally reviled behavior of driving too slow in the left lane. But people are willing to accept the safety risks inherent in speeding, so anyone in the fast lane traveling slower best GTFO.

But I’m sure the “backing in is the only way!!!” safety guys never speed, and would welcome a few seconds of serenity in their left lane excursions

It's not a fast lane, it's a passing lane

 

[Instinctive]

You guys are pretty damn serious about your parking.

Not really, just a minor peeve.

Similar to the nearly universally reviled behavior of driving too slow in the left lane. But people are willing to accept the safety risks inherent in speeding, so anyone in the fast lane traveling slower best GTFO.

But I’m sure the “backing in is the only way!!!” safety guys never speed, and would welcome a few seconds of serenity in their left lane excursions

Another bad analogy, as it is a passing lane, not a fast lane and it is a law, not a preference.

 

[Terminalxylem]

You guys are pretty damn serious about your parking.

Not really, just a minor peeve.

Similar to the nearly universally reviled behavior of driving too slow in the left lane. But people are willing to accept the safety risks inherent in speeding, so anyone in the fast lane traveling slower best GTFO.

But I’m sure the “backing in is the only way!!!” safety guys never speed, and would welcome a few seconds of serenity in their left lane excursions

Another bad analogy, as it is a passing lane, not a fast lane and it is a law, not a preference.

It’s not the law everywhere, and it’s a good example of people being impatient, while making driving decisions with less than optimal safety. Heck, any speeding qualifies.

ETA What other “bad analogy” are you referring to?

 

[Gally]

How long until it crosses your threshold for inconsiderate?

For parallel parking there is no time limit for being inconsiderate. "inconsiderate" has some factor of intent. The act of parallel parking has to be a back in and on a street will back traffic up but there is no other way around it. You have to park and you have to back in. Someone not being skilled enough to do it under a certain time limit doesn't lead to the "intent" portion to lead to being inconsiderate. They are just bad at parallel parking but unfortunately in order to park they have to do this.

 

[wlwiles]

But I’m sure the “backing in is the only way!!!” safety guys never speed, and would welcome a few seconds of serenity in their left lane excursions

This is an entirely different can of worms.

Speeding 5 mph over the limit on an expressway/interstate is very different than speeding 5 mph over on a rural two lane road. Different states have different speed limits on their highways, so going 70 mph might be legal here and not legal there, but is it automatically safer in one state vs. another? Nope. What if I'm on an 8 lane highway in Los Angeles, or on a deserted West Texas highway? Same road, but doing 70 mph on one is very different than the other.

Saying "all you back-in parking safety warriors surely don't speed do you" is comparing apples to blue jeans.

 

[Harry Manback]

I get the argument that is being had for backing into a spot in a parking lot, but how did parallel parking become part of the discussion?

Entitled people think others should cater to them.

This has definitely crossed my mind, as I’ve waited for someone to fumble their way reversing into a space.

I have doubts about this level of self-reflection, but good for you.

 

[Harry Manback]

But I’m sure the “backing in is the only way!!!” safety guys never speed, and would welcome a few seconds of serenity in their left lane excursions

This is an entirely different can of worms.

Speeding 5 mph over the limit on an expressway/interstate is very different than speeding 5 mph over on a rural two lane road. Different states have different speed limits on their highways, so going 70 mph might be legal here and not legal there, but is it automatically safer in one state vs. another? Nope. What if I'm on an 8 lane highway in Los Angeles, or on a deserted West Texas highway? Same road, but doing 70 mph on one is very different than the other.

Saying "all you back-in parking safety warriors surely don't speed do you" is comparing apples to blue jeans.

When you run out of bad faith arguments the next logical step is to move the goalposts or whataboutism.

 

[Gally]

But I’m sure the “backing in is the only way!!!” safety guys never speed, and would welcome a few seconds of serenity in their left lane excursions

This is an entirely different can of worms.

Speeding 5 mph over the limit on an expressway/interstate is very different than speeding 5 mph over on a rural two lane road. Different states have different speed limits on their highways, so going 70 mph might be legal here and not legal there, but is it automatically safer in one state vs. another? Nope. What if I'm on an 8 lane highway in Los Angeles, or on a deserted West Texas highway? Same road, but doing 70 mph on one is very different than the other.

Saying "all you back-in parking safety warriors surely don't speed do you" is comparing apples to blue jeans.

When you run out of bad faith arguments the next logical step is to move the goalposts or whataboutism.

I took it to mean that there is an incremental decrease in safety if you drive faster. There is an incremental decrease in safety if you back out of a parking space. The people that go faster than the speed limit are weighing the incremental decrease in safety and saying it's ok. The people that are backing out of parking spaces are doing the same. So to say it's safer to back in to a spot so you can be safer pulling out of the spot but then speed are using safety as a reason for one thing but then not worrying about safety for the other

Everything you do inherently weighs pros and cons and level of safety (when driving cars) should be pretty high on the list crafting all your decisions.

 

[Scoresman]

I dont think safety really factors a lot into people's decisions when it comes to which way to park. I think it skews way more towards personal convenience. I wish people would more equally weigh personal convenience and how their actions affect others.

 

[BrutalPenguin]

Need to parallel park in front of a line of cars? Just turn on your crab walk mode and pull straight in. Wa-La!

 

[the moops]

Yesterday pulled the trifecta. Pulled into an angled spot. Had to wait a minute for traffic to clear before I could back out though. Then later in the morning backed into a parking space and pulled out a bit later with no trouble on either side. Then went back to work and managed to parallel park on a busy street with cars lined up behind me. Nobody lost their **** or started honking or yelling with the 10 seconds they needed to wait.

 

[Gally]

I dont think safety really factors a lot into people's decisions when it comes to which way to park. I think it skews way more towards personal convenience. I wish people would more equally weigh personal convenience and how their actions affect others.

Agreed however the reason the backer-inners give as to why they do it is because it's safer. That is the only reason safety is being discussed.

 

[Scoresman]

I dont think safety really factors a lot into people's decisions when it comes to which way to park. I think it skews way more towards personal convenience. I wish people would more equally weigh personal convenience and how their actions affect others.

Agreed however the reason the backer-inners give as to why they do it is because it's safer. That is the only reason safety is being discussed.

The key is that its safer if you're good at it. The problem is many people who insist on backing in are not good at it, making it unsafe and annoying to others.

 

[Terminalxylem]

But I’m sure the “backing in is the only way!!!” safety guys never speed, and would welcome a few seconds of serenity in their left lane excursions

This is an entirely different can of worms.

Speeding 5 mph over the limit on an expressway/interstate is very different than speeding 5 mph over on a rural two lane road. Different states have different speed limits on their highways, so going 70 mph might be legal here and not legal there, but is it automatically safer in one state vs. another? Nope. What if I'm on an 8 lane highway in Los Angeles, or on a deserted West Texas highway? Same road, but doing 70 mph on one is very different than the other.

Saying "all you back-in parking safety warriors surely don't speed do you" is comparing apples to blue jeans.

When you run out of bad faith arguments the next logical step is to move the goalposts or whataboutism.

I took it to mean that there is an incremental decrease in safety if you drive faster. There is an incremental decrease in safety if you back out of a parking space. The people that go faster than the speed limit are weighing the incremental decrease in safety and saying it's ok. The people that are backing out of parking spaces are doing the same. So to say it's safer to back in to a spot so you can be safer pulling out of the spot but then speed are using safety as a reason for one thing but then not worrying about safety for the other

Everything you do inherently weighs pros and cons and level of safety (when driving cars) should be pretty high on the list crafting all your decisions.

You sir are a good person, with excellent reading and reasoning skills.

 

[Terminalxylem]

I dont think safety really factors a lot into people's decisions when it comes to which way to park. I think it skews way more towards personal convenience. I wish people would more equally weigh personal convenience and how their actions affect others.

Another guy who gets it.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Yesterday pulled the trifecta. Pulled into an angled spot. Had to wait a minute for traffic to clear before I could back out though. Then later in the morning backed into a parking space and pulled out a bit later with no trouble on either side. Then went back to work and managed to parallel park on a busy street with cars lined up behind me. Nobody lost their **** or started honking or yelling with the 10 seconds they needed to wait.

Good job.

I think you may be assuming this upsets people more than it actually does.

Do I find it annoying to be delayed? Sure. But I definitely don’t “lose my sh!t”. Haven’t honked my horn in years.

 

[Gatorade]

You guys are pretty damn serious about your parking.

How did this thread get to 13 pages ?
.