This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on June 7, 2010 4:44 AM. The previous post in this blog was He even works on rainy days. The next post in this blog is Tired, tired arguments. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Monday, June 7, 2010

What's next from the bicycle overlords

They'll be switching us over to angled, back-in parking for our cars.

Comments (19)

There is already some of this in the Pearl near Jameison Sq. Been there for a couple of years.

You'd have to back up? At an angle? What an outrage.

I dunno, there seem to be an alarming amount of people who cannot seem to manage backing up an automobile. This might actually help though, as it is easier just to back in than parallel park.

and this system is on 10th in front of the former YWCA too

And there are a few in the Beaumont-Wilshire area too. There are some at Fremont and Alberta/37th, right where the contested cell-phone/WiMax tower is being planned. There are some others in the B/W shopping area along the side streets of Fremont.

Most drivers are terrible at backing their vehicles up on anything but a straight driveway.

This will cause more safety concerns than it will solve.

Fred, I look forward (and I use that word advisedly) to watching you parallel park. I would also like to note, since it's an idea that seems to have gone missing here, that most head-in diagonal parking requires reversing to get out.

I can see this causing all sorts of issues until people get used to them. Mainly the car behind you pulling up on your bumper so there is no room to backup. The other issue is most cars hang out over the rear wheel much farther then the front. This can lead to hitting trees, benches, phone booths, whatever inamimate object along with endangering pedestrians.

Many folks are "spacial skills lacking." And although I don't know for sure, I'm told that the Oregon drivers exam no longer requires applicants to parallel park.

When I took the driving exam for USPS work, one of things we were required to do was back through a series of pylons in a serpentine with medium- and large-sized trucks. Another was to back up to a dock between parallel lines and stop in the correct position. Not as easy as it looks and a lot of people failed or hit the pylons and dock repeatedly. Men (in general, although there are exceptions) are reportedly better at spacial judgment.

While I worked out of downtown Portland, we were told to avoid backing up if at all possible while delivering!

I wouldn't want a "spacial skills lacking" run of the mill driver backing into a parking space next to my car.

I grew up in a town with lots of diagnal parking, but it was forward in, reverse out. Frankly that makes more sense to me, and was perfectly safe as long as you take your time and look behind you.

The street gives you more wiggle room when reversing, as opposed to squeezing between two parked cars.

Allan L, there is a great difference backing into a angled parking spot than backing out:

1) backing out into at least one or two open traffic lanes where you don't have to thread-the-needle, is much easier for most drivers;

2) backing in having to use rear and side mirrors (and many mirrors of more late model vehicles having images different than actual distance) between two vehicles maybe providing only one or two feet of clearance, is much different than backing out;

3) again with the deceptive mirrors, or even without, most people have a hard time judging their tail-end distance from objects like curbs, parking meters, paper boxes, street furniture;

4)since most parking lots are already angled forward parking, more people are "trained" to park in forward angled parking on our public streets.

5)many drivers have a hard time turning their head clear around to view, have depth perception problems, and get all confused using mirrors.

But I still prefer parallel parking which leaves more room for traffic lanes, and maybe even more lanes per the public right-of-way. But if you care less about vehicle movement and only think commerce should be by bike, then we're heading down the right path.

Tucson, just another place that I won't want to live in - not that I was considering it, but now it has one more strike against it.

Sure, let's back into spaces where little kids entering and exiting vehicles are obscured by parked cars or are invisible below the line of sight of the rear view mirror or back windshield. Right, that's safe, all for the benefit of adults on bikes.

I've seen this parking plan in place. My observation is that anything other than curb parking eats the width of an entire traffic lane. Why do we want to narrow the city streets? Oh yeah, they want to make city driving such a miserable experience that no one does it anymore.

Funny thing, my car insurance immediately dropped by 50 percent when I escaped the Gulag known as Oregon. Clean record, pushing 40, and I paid out nearly $100 a month up there. I've been told that Oregon has some of the highest rates in the nation due to not only it's terrible drivers, but the large amount of them without any insurance.

Both of which should be highly entertaining when your Commissars implement this "back in" parking slot plan all over town. Hell, I'd bet money there is a model of a future downtown PDX in some parasite's office, which is *totally* closed off to all motorized vehicle traffic. The few businesses which foolishly remain are probably going to be expected to bike their merchandise and food in or haul it on their backs, on the train....

lw, thanks for your informed comments. As a counter, I think that it is arguably safer to stop your car, put it into reverse (your reverse lights let oncoming traffic know what you're doing), and back into the space, and then, when you leave, go forward into traffic, yielding to easily-seen oncoming drivers as well as bicyclists. It seems to me that a backward movement out of a diagonal spot is less safe not only for bicyclists, but also for other vehicles driving by.

As for comparing parallel parking, I think the disadvantages of parallel is that it is harder for people to execute successfully (it certainly is for me!). Certainly diagonal parking is only appropriate when there is enough right of way for enough travel lanes.

Another point - diagonal parking allows for more on-street spaces than parallel parking does - if you think that's a good thing (I do).

all the better for making a quick get away? Go by shoe leather.

If they tried to implement this here in Portland, wouldnt they have to take out a lane of traffic? Can't exactly make the street wider.

For streets that are wide enough, it makes sense. Hell, they even do it in the 'couv and I haven't seen any problems (I drive by it everyday at Clark College).

But, I'm not certain that it will help out cyclists. What I notice is a lot of cars hanging out in the bike lane waiting for other cars to pass them before backing in.

Frankly, if you can't back into a parking space safely, you probably shouldn't be on the road driving a big hunk of metal anyway.

Having young kids, I also like the idea of getting my kids out of the back seat and having the car door between them and the street.

Clicky Web Analytics