Parallel park +1.8m?
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Ray Keattch on 1 Dec 2009 15:52 Harry Bloomfield wrote: > TV proggy yesterday evening with Carol Voderperson. Apparently someone > has done the maths to work out how much extra space is needed, extra to > your vehicle length, to be able to park between two other vehicles - > they said VL + 1.8m... They demonstrated by driving along side perfectly > parallel level with the most forward car, then reversing from there with > just two moves including the last mentioned one. > > Now I reckon to be able to manage with just a fraction over 1m. The way > I do it is to drive nose first into the gap, back out again still going > forward, which gets my tail end already pointing towards the kerb, > reverse in then a bit of shuffling back and forth to get tight up to the > kerb - should the gap be tight. Not more shuffling! I can parallel park the Rover 75 with a foot space front and back with no shuffling required. I get parallel to the front car, go full lock until I get a three quarter view of the rear car in the side mirror. I straighten up and then go opposite lock when I have a certain triangle visible through the side window (bottom of window and kirb. I then go opposite lock until straight with kirb. No shuffling is required and this method works for any car and driver. -- MrBitsy
From: Silk on 1 Dec 2009 17:27 On 01/12/2009 17:20, Harry Bloomfield wrote: > Now I reckon to be able to manage with just a fraction over 1m. The way > I do it is to drive nose first into the gap, back out again still going > forward, which gets my tail end already pointing towards the kerb, > reverse in then a bit of shuffling back and forth to get tight up to the > kerb - should the gap be tight. You obviously have no idea about basic geometry if you think that makes any difference. Whatever position you can get in by driving in forwards as you describe can be duplicated by going in backwards. Plus you avoid confusing other road users by doing something unexpected and, frankly, quite mad. I would say 1.8m would be about right for a comfortable parallel park in a single move without any extra aids or someone guiding you in. In theory, you could get into any space that's longer than the car, but you'd have to do a hell of a lot of shuffling backwards and forwards to do it if it was only a couple of inches.
From: Silk on 1 Dec 2009 17:31 On 01/12/2009 20:52, Ray Keattch wrote: > I can parallel park the Rover 75 with a foot space front and back with > no shuffling required. I get parallel to the front car, go full lock > until I get a three quarter view of the rear car in the side mirror. I > straighten up and then go opposite lock when I have a certain triangle > visible through the side window (bottom of window and kirb. I then go > opposite lock until straight with kirb. > > No shuffling is required and this method works for any car and driver. I use a slightly different method that I won't even attempt to describe here, although it's along the same lines and probably the same thing in practice. I agree that once you have the correct method and trust it, it will work for any car in any space within reason.
From: JNugent on 1 Dec 2009 17:32 Ray Keattch wrote: > Harry Bloomfield wrote: >> TV proggy yesterday evening with Carol Voderperson. Apparently someone >> has done the maths to work out how much extra space is needed, extra >> to your vehicle length, to be able to park between two other vehicles >> - they said VL + 1.8m... They demonstrated by driving along side >> perfectly parallel level with the most forward car, then reversing >> from there with just two moves including the last mentioned one. >> >> Now I reckon to be able to manage with just a fraction over 1m. The >> way I do it is to drive nose first into the gap, back out again still >> going forward, which gets my tail end already pointing towards the >> kerb, reverse in then a bit of shuffling back and forth to get tight >> up to the kerb - should the gap be tight. > > Not more shuffling! > > I can parallel park the Rover 75 with a foot space front and back with > no shuffling required. I get parallel to the front car, go full lock > until I get a three quarter view of the rear car in the side mirror. I > straighten up and then go opposite lock when I have a certain triangle > visible through the side window (bottom of window and kirb. I then go > opposite lock until straight with kirb. > > No shuffling is required and this method works for any car and driver. In that particular spot, once the individual has got used to it?
From: Conor on 1 Dec 2009 18:11
In article <P4idnXQBK75vHIjWnZ2dnUVZ8uKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Ray Keattch says... > I can parallel park the Rover 75 with a foot space front and back with > no shuffling required. BULLSHIT. Completely and utterly impossible. Don't need to drive it - basic mathematics can prove it. -- Conor www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally. |