From: Harry Bloomfield on
Silk used his keyboard to write :
> No, I think you'll find I was right. I was talking about the total space
> required to park the car is the diagonal dimension plus the wriggle room.

Agreed, I have just re-read it.

Harry (M1BYT) (L)

From: Harry Bloomfield on
Silk used his keyboard to write :
> 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.

This para,

> 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.

...contradicts your second one!

+ 1.8m is sheer luxury compared to most of the parking spots I use.
Tomorrow, if I have the time, I might take some measurements.

Harry (M1BYT) (L)

From: Silk on
On 02/12/2009 18:01, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
> Conor explained on 01/12/2009 :
>> BULLSHIT. Completely and utterly impossible. Don't need to drive it -
>> basic mathematics can prove it.
> Well I try to be a little more gentle with my comments, but when you are
> right, you're right :D

There's a lot of machismo out there when it comes to parking. The theory
being, it's something that women can't do, so the smaller the space you
can park in, the more of a man you are.
From: Ray Keattch on
Conor wrote:
> In article <lqmdnSkrHc0EBIjWnZ2dnUVZ8nJi4p2d(a)>, JNugent says...
>> 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?
> Ray is bullshitting. Do the maths and it won't work for any car more
> than a few feet wide.

Oh blimey, here we go with the measurment down to the inch! Take 'foot'
to mean about a foot, not a lot more. Maybe it is 16 inches, maybe 15 :-)

What I was trying to get at is once a method is learnt, it can be used
to get into a space not much longer than the car consistantly without


From: Ray Keattch on
Mike wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:00:17 +0000, Silk <me(a)> wrote:
>> On 01/12/2009 23:12, Conor wrote:
>>> Ray is bullshitting. Do the maths and it won't work for any car more
>>> than a few feet wide.
>> Agreed up to a point. It's impossible to fit into a space in one move
>> that's smaller than the diagonal dimension of the car plus the space
>> required to move the car in - as you can't bring the front in without
>> moving the car back. That would make the "foot either side" impossible.
>> For a car 12' long and 6' wide, we can use Pythagoras to calculate that
>> the diagonal would be the square root of 144 + 36 which happens to equal
>> approximately 13.42'. So this would give us about 1.42' to play with
>> plus the maneuvering room. I would say that the TV programme has
>> probably got it about right, if you add up the dimensions required, the
>> room to maneuver and a bit extra to allow for the fact that you can't
>> see every inch.
>> I would consider myself pretty good at parallel parking as I have to do
>> a lot of it, but I'm not Superman and I'm guessing neither is Ray. It
>> would be interesting to take a tape measure along to one of these "foot
>> either side" maneuvers and measure it.
> I'd doubt the 1ft claims too,

A loose 'foot'. If I thought we would get into inches then I would
measure it! Forget foot - maybe 15 inches, maybe 17 inches, but the
method once learnt is consistant.