The Which Way Round to Park the Car Thread

[johnd]

Always reverse into a parking space, a great deal safer when leaving visibility wise.

 

Cars are designed to be driven forwards , the human being can't see as much when going backwards, a recipe for incidents!

[Catweasel]

I have a truck background and I find it hilarious to see some of the antics when people reverse. Trying to get a 5 foot wide car into a 8 foot space? No problem. 5000 revs,slip the clutch and, whoops, I'm too close.  3 foot space from the car/wall. I will always reverse into a space for safety reasons, and only using my mirrors. 

[alastairq]

I too, have an ancient [pre-power steering?] heavy vehicle [wagon & bus] background, plus a long-standing military instructional influence as well....[still at it]....and I couldn't care less which way round I park....unless I have to access the vehicles back door with something big! [i pay attention to regulations when parking on the public road, however]....

 

Because I have an instructional background...I have some sympathies/tolerance for those drivers who struggle maneuvering/parking...especially with modern cars which are designed like slabs [scottish coaches spring to mind?]

 

Sometimes I get it wrong too......usually I really don't care that much.....since we are all entitled to get it wrong....here & there.

 

Patience is useful....gets the job done quicker?

[cheesysmith]

I find reverse parking easy, but like a few on here I have been taught properly because I hold a PSV license. Once learnt, it's so easy parking and reversing using your mirrors. If you want to know the trick, it's easy. Just remember the widest part of your car/bus/lorry etc is your mirrors. Line your car up so the gap is behind you, then look in both mirrors. If you can see gap in both mirrors, you can fit through it. It's as easy as that, just requires practice. The only time I look over my shoulder is to check there is nobody behind you.

[Reorte]

I usually park nose in, it's easier to reverse out than in (not that it's that hard to do either). The big exception is at home where there's a great big laurel by the side so it's hard enough to see past it anyway.

[newbryford]

My wife reversed the car out of the garage this morning.

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

Problem was, I reversed it in last night...............................................

 

Cheers,

Mick

[PhilJ W]

I live very close to a blind corner, so reversing onto my drive is a no-brainer. I also, due to minor mobility problems need to open the car door fully to get in or out of the car. I bear this in mind when I use supermarket car parks and either reverse or drive in accordingly, usually parking so that I am drivers door to drivers door with the car alongside. If I can I try to find an end bay so that no one can park and obstruct my door, reversing or driving in accordingly.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Although it is not illegal to reverse onto the Highway,  the Highway Code advice (200 - 203) is not to.

Contravening any advice the HC gives is not an offence automatically. However, if you contravene advice from it and either cause danger to other road users or, indeed, have an accident, the fact that you ignored advice contained in the HC could be used as evidence against you.

Not saying I don't do it, but..........

That's why in some places the local authority require you to have either a 'Y' shaped drive on your land - so you can drive on and into one leg of the 'Y', reverse into the other and ready to drive forwards onto the road, or a turntable.  West Cornwall seems to have these requirements and when I lived in Malvern, we definatly had to install turntables on the roads by the North Hill.

Meanwhile, I try to always reverse into a space, on the assumption I'm probably a bit more in tune with the car, thus able to reverse with some ease, having been driving for a while, rather than trying to reverse etc., from a cold start (both the car and myself).

 

Planners will normally only require forwards exit from a property if you are on a classified road (A, B or C).

[Joseph_Pestell]

Vehicles are far more easily manoeuvred with the steering wheels to the rear, hence the design of dumper trucks. So logically, it is always better to reverse a car into a space, whether in a car park, kerbside (parallel) or driveway. I also find that I am less likely to  scuff the tyres on the kerb if I reverse into a kerbside space.

 

So I am very much a "reverser". But I do recall an incident in central Croydon, as it happens on my way to the bank to pay in exhibition takings (to make this story RMWeb relevant). I drove past a space in Park St so as to reverse in. A Mini then drove into the space from behind me. Not pleased, I got out of my car to treat the driver of the Mini to an education in Anglo-Saxon vocabulary.....only to find that it was my father's boss.

 

And I am sure we all remember that ad where John Cleese and Ken Campbell both reverse into the same space from opposite ends.

[trisonic]

When you have a local supermarket called “Piggly Wiggly” - who cares which way around you park? https://www.pigglywiggly.com

 

Best, Pete.

[wollastonblue]

Normally I reverse park in, however if with my little man I use a parent and child space when we can get one at a supermarket, I do go nose in as it's easier to get him out of the car and in to the trolley.

 

My new car does have a reversing camera on it, which does make it a lot easier.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...Another element to the test may be following the instructions of a sat-nav.

Already tested for, examiner issues route instructions. Only needs the cull tee VAY shone of    a    rath UR still ted dee LIVER eee, to perfectly match satnavese.

[kevinlms]

I live very close to a blind corner, so reversing onto my drive is a no-brainer.

At home I invariably reverse in. I have a rear wheel drive car, with a steepish but short, gravel drive that I need to descend, where I also park parallel with the roadway. Any way but reversing in, is asking for trouble to get out again.

[Reorte]

Already tested for, examiner issues route instructions.

Which I managed to get wrong on my test. Fortunately for me the examiner admitted he hadn't been very clear and didn't penalise me.

[newbryford]

Which I managed to get wrong on my test. Fortunately for me the examiner admitted he hadn't been very clear and didn't penalise me.

 

There is usually no problem for not following the instructions correctly, as long as what you do is safe. It's not unusual to confuse left and right for example. If any of my pupils have trouble with left or right, then I will point it out to them, or say, "turn to me/turn to you". The examiners will also do the same if they are notified of left/right issues.

 

Part of the driving test now includes a section of independent driving, where the examiner simply asks you to follow a particular direction sign, it's up to the driver to interpret the sign and go left/right/ahead as required. Or the examiner will show the driver a simple map of (usually) three junctions, in much the same way that you would stop and ask directions from a pedestrian. Go to the end of the road and turn left, at the end of that road turn left again and at the roundabout turn right.

If they go the wrong way, as long as they're safe, it's OK. It's not a memory test, it's a demonstration of safe driving.

 

Cheers,

Mick

[Nimbus]

I think you should consider shopping at a nicer supermarket? Are there any Waitrose stores near you?

 

For a moment there, I thought I was still watching Jack Dee's Election Helpdesk.

 

The Nim.

[Reorte]

There is usually no problem for not following the instructions correctly, as long as what you do is safe.

In my case it was I had to turn right on a roundabout, then keep going right (i.e. the next right after the roundabout too) but that was the message that hadn't come across clearly. If I had followed his instructions then I wouldn't have wound up waiting at the lights when an ambulance appeared from behind, lights and sirens going... Really not what you want on your test! Crossing the line on the red would've presumably been a fail, in the end I think I nudged the kerb trying to shuffle a little bit to the side. Anyway I passed.

 

I don't remember having any follow signs or maps bits to the test, is that a relatively recent addition? I passed before the written part was introduced.

[Nimbus]

Yep, totally agree. Why work harder than you need to...

 

If I can't find one i'd reverse in, much safer as you can normally have a better idea what else is moving in the vicinity when you back in, than when you're trying to reverse out blind from between the van and SUV that have parked either side of you...

 

...although if they're both nose-in you're not much better off. There's a sort of arms race in progress causing

a proliferation of bigger, ever uglier 'cars' making parking driving and walking a less pleasant business. 

 

One of my managers related HR policy as applied at his previous workplace: when it came time for redundancies,

the boss would look out over the car park and see whose were parked tail-in. These were culled, on the basis that

their subconscious desire to depart work as quickly as possible had been rumbled.

 

The Nim.

[Enterprisingwestern]

I generally try and park tyres down.

 

Mike.

[Tony_S]

Already tested for, examiner issues route instructions. Only needs the cull tee VAY shone of    a    rath UR still ted dee LIVER eee, to perfectly match satnavese.

During my test in moment of stupidity I took the next left instead of the next right and got the examiner lost. I didn't realise this but was surprised when we came to a T junction and I had to ask left or right. We eventually got back to a test route. I thought the test was a bit longer than expected. The examiner had only been in Southend for a short time!

Tony

[BG John]

I generally try and park tyres down.

 

Mike.

Do you generally succeed?

[30801]

One of my managers related HR policy as applied at his previous workplace: when it came time for redundancies,

the boss would look out over the car park and see whose were parked tail-in. These were culled, on the basis that

their subconscious desire to depart work as quickly as possible had been rumbled.

Where SWMBO used to work redundancies were seemingly based on whose cars were in the car park after 6PM on the basis that the stay-laters were hard working.

 

SWMBO who generally got into work at 7AM got the chop. The stay-lates were mostly just hanging around surfing the web anyway.

 

No need for the sympathy button. It was a crappy place to work.

[Derekl]

Highway Code - mentioned above: the code uses the word MUST where there is a legal requirement to comply, and quotes the relevant legislation below. Failure to comply can result in prosecution.

 

Otherwise, it uses "should" as advice. Failure to comply with advice that results in an accident is evidence of fault and can be used for that purpose in civil proceedings (or should be, if the lawyers know their stuff, not always a given). 

 

Note though, that there is a little "catch-all": you MUST not drive dangerously, without due care and attention or without consideration for other road users. Not following the "advice" may result in prosecution for one of these offences, even though the specific failure is not an offence itself.

 

An interesting feature in the addendum to the Code is the "Braking distances" section: first introduced in about 1935 (I think, possibly earlier). The distances given today are the same as those originally quoted, sort of ignoring the vast improvements in brake and tyre technology in the intervening years.

[Reorte]

Where SWMBO used to work redundancies were seemingly based on whose cars were in the car park after 6PM on the basis that the stay-laters were hard working.

 

SWMBO who generally got into work at 7AM got the chop. The stay-lates were mostly just hanging around surfing the web anyway.

 

No need for the sympathy button. It was a crappy place to work.

I can imagine. Any place that bases who they're going to keep on such stupid criteria, unlike, something less obvious like the quality of work done sounds like somewhere to avoid, as does any place that seems to regard it as bad if you only work the hours you're supposed to instead of doing a load of unpaid work too . Unfortunately that's at epedemic proportions, and I'm glad I'm in a place that doesn't seem to act like that (I'd have been gone years ago if it was!)

[Metr0Land]

 

An interesting feature in the addendum to the Code is the "Braking distances" section: first introduced in about 1935 (I think, possibly earlier). The distances given today are the same as those originally quoted, sort of ignoring the vast improvements in brake and tyre technology in the intervening years.

 

 

Yeah but the improvements in braking distance are probably outweighed by the addishnul finking time needed by today's proles behind the wheel.  We of course had more sense in our day didn't we?