Parallel park +1.8m?
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Harry Bloomfield on 3 Dec 2009 13:35 Ray Keattch pretended : > 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 shuffling. Agreed, but only if the space is adequate to do it in one move - well two, because you need to draw forward a little to equalise the space front and back. If the space is not enough, then you can get in by some forward and backward shuffling - which was the point I was making. -- Regards, Harry (M1BYT) (L) http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk
From: Harry Bloomfield on 3 Dec 2009 13:38 After serious thinking Conor wrote : >> 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 :-) >> > Still bollox. Try 2ft. Remember Ray meant a foot at the front and another at the rear, so car length plus two foot. You are saying two foot plus two foot or four feet? -- Regards, Harry (M1BYT) (L) http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk
From: Harry Bloomfield on 3 Dec 2009 18:02 Ian explained on 02/12/2009 : > On 1 Dec, 17:20, Harry Bloomfield <harry.m1...(a)NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> > 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... > > How do you back out forwards? > > Ian I would have thought that obvious, however.... Swing the nose into the space and without stopping continue driving forwards bring the nose end back out again. That should leave you already with the tail pointing into the parking spot. It avoids your having to go forward to a point level with the furthest forward car and also prevents a smaller more nimble cars from nipping straight in behind you and claiming your prize :-) -- Regards, Harry (M1BYT) (L) http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk
From: Ray Keattch on 3 Dec 2009 18:10 Silk wrote: > On 02/12/2009 23:04, Ray Keattch wrote: > >> 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. > > So not actually a foot then. No, not exactly a foot - maybe 13 inches as I haven't measured it. Next to the car it looked about a foot either end. -- MrBitsy
From: Harry Bloomfield on 3 Dec 2009 18:19
Ray Keattch used his keyboard to write : > No, not exactly a foot - maybe 13 inches as I haven't measured it. Next to > the car it looked about a foot either end. Oh come on Ray - a foot, 13 inches, 15 to 17 inches - which is it? -- Regards, Harry (M1BYT) (L) http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk |