Driver attempts to parallel park in generously-sized space for 6 minutes

boing
101

Check your anglocentrism ;-). If the US and maybe Australia (no idea, haven’t checked) does something, and the UK does something different, you cannot conclude that the UK is somehow the exception to a global rule.
So far, only the US, the UK (where it’s legal) and Germany (where it’s reported to be common) have even been mentioned, and I’ll add Austria, where it’s allowed everywhere except on main streets.
We haven’t taken a sufficient sample to be able to make any statements about the world. And even if we knew about all places in the world, we could then start arguing about how to weight the results. Do we count populations, do we count drivers, or do we count drivers who need to parallel park their car?

No idea about the UK, but here in Austria it’s illegal on main streets within city limits. So, basically, you are allowed to make a three-point turn whenever you’re allowed to park on the other side of the street (except in one-way streets, of course).
I don’t see a good reason why one would allow one and ban the other.

Imagine a low-traffic residential area, with > 95% of spots taken. The next person who wishes to park will come along in five minutes, so it’s not about getting there first. U-turns are impossible because the road is too narrow; three-point turns take a long time, long enough for some other car to actually come along and have to wait for you. You can probably turn comfortably at the next intersection.
So, if you see a spot on the other side, you can either take it, or go at least to the next intersection or around a block to turn around and go back to your spot. So it’ll just take twice as much driving to find a space.
Congratulations - you have just doubled traffic in a residential area in exchange for no gain that I can think of.

In many places, it’s not the “long-term storage” of the private possessions that is a problem, but the short-term storage. That is, people driving to work and people doing their shopping.
My parents used to cycle the block for tens of minutes in order to find a spot for their own car when I was young. Then the city government imposed a 3-hour parking limit in the area, with special permits available for residents, and there has never been a problem with finding a spot since then.

But as a cyclist, I very much want the right to temporarily store my bicycle on public space. It would be pretty much useless otherwise.
So in order to get rid of parked cars, I’d have to argue using “cars are bad” arguments, not using “public space” arguments.

2 Likes
103

In fact… Here in Brazil the microgenre in question is with Eurythimcs Sweet Dreams

104

Back when I had a1971 144 it could get into surprisingly small spaces. For a largish car it had a very tight turning radius. And in that early, non-power steering implementation, an enormous steering wheel for lots of leverage.

1 Like
105

I know what you mean. It’s pretty much a religion here, although it interests me little. Perhaps more interesting from a cultural perspective than a sporting one. And not being from around these parts, I can’t skate either.

Having said that, growing up in Australia I hated all things footy, so maybe these professional ball/puck sports just aren’t my thing. The main reason I hated footy was because I was expected to like it. Well, not just like it, but be somewhat obsessed by it. Or perhaps I’m just anti-social. Mmmm. That’s probably it.

106

So the next spot on the “correct” side of the road will be, on average, 10 spaces from where they want to park (95% means there is 1 space every 20 cars). I think it would have to be more than 99% occupied for your example to be really valid. But I think I understand your argument. Inefficiency in getting parked does add to traffic and is a benefit of wrong-side parking. Point well made.

1 Like
107

Yes, but it’s not that black and white. Bikes take up far less public space than cars. In the residential context they are mostly stored privately.

108

I doubt that regular driving is more dangerous per hour of participation than hockey. At least from an injury perspective. From a fatality perspective it might be different. Few people are killed playing hockey.

109

Fair enough. I’ve been to many countries, but the UK is the only placed I’ve NOTICED this practice. It might be far more widespread than I imagine/recall.

110

Only jumping in because although this is true, it is also so damn interesting…

…and not for lack of trying.

1 Like
111

Touché. There are also plenty of streets in my neighborhood which are two-way streets with one parking lane. But really, I was just being sloppy with my number estimates.

I think that in many places, it’s hard to notice either the practice or its absence.
For any European city, I can find evidence in Google Street View of people parking both ways within a few seconds. Clicking through Tokyo for a couple of minutes, I failed to find streets where Europeans would park both ways, so I count that as inconclusive evidence. And I’ve spent several weeks vacationing in the US, and I never noticed that people don’t do it, nor was I ever in a situation where I would have been tempted to park on the other side of the street myself.

112

Hey! Give us a spoiler alert, would ya?

1 Like
113

I wouldn’t go that far, but I think it’s juvenile.

1 Like
114

Apparently MA just added this into their drivers handbook? I think it would be useful for everyone to practice this, especially if you live in a place where lots of people do cycle…

https://www.dutchreach.org/

Basically, you go for the door handle, with the hand that’s farthest from the door, forcing you to look back as you do.

2 Likes
115

Rear wheel drive Volvos (with longitudinally mounted engines) are kinda famous for this. We used to have a 1997 960 station wagon that had a turn radius of 15’ 9". By way of comparison, that Volvo could make a U-turn on a street nearly four feet narrower than a new Mini Cooper could, even though the Volvo is nearly three and a half feet longer than the Mini. The new Fiat 500c has a slightly tighter turn radius, and it’s 4’ 4" shorter than the Volvo 960.

2 Likes
116

My brother was instructed to do a three point turn on his driver’s test. Instead of doing the normal thing and doing most of a u-turn then backing up once, he turned RIGHT into the curb, backed around into the opposite lane continued. I had to console him after his failure but it still gives me smiles.

117

In other news, man watches driver attempt to parallel park for three minutes, reads comments for 20 and wastes most of his lunchtime.

118

Oh yeah, I did have to do a 3 point turn too. Thankfully I got it right.

119

Ah, memories. I had a 1974 164E. (Well, two of them, actually.) I swear that thing had the turning circle tighter than a London taxi.[quote=“Donald_Petersen, post:115, topic:102491”]
Rear wheel drive Volvos (with longitudinally mounted engines) are kinda famous for this.
[/quote]

Even modern front-wheel drive ones weren’t so bad. Except for the phase 2 (?) V70. It had the engine slightly further forward and between the wheels (better crash protection, I gather) limiting the wheel movement and its turning circle was thus far worse than the previous model. I had scrapes on the side of mine to prove it, from the early days after I’d changed it for the previous model and was not yet used to this deficiency (that and a protruding bolt hidden in the ivy on a drive post). The towing fraternity, in particular, complained. Volvo fixed it in the next generation V70. I can also attest to that.

(But I have owned other marques. Honest.)

1 Like
120

So kind of the opposite of the Nash Metropolitan, which was quite small but had a large turning radius, in large part because the fenders covered the front wheels.

1 Like
121

Yep. I don’t see these front wheels turning very steeply:

1956_Nash_Metropolitan_retro___d_2048x1536.jpg1024×768 114 KB

Volvos don’t turn that tightly anymore since I think they’re all front-wheel-drive now, and the transaxles don’t allow for all that much flexibility.

1 Like