What we also should do on a national level is update a federal driving code that teaches peds that if you see the back up lights on or you see a car moving in reverse you stop.

Full stop. You do not cross behind a moving car. Same for drivers in a parking lot.

We need to switch things and give priority to those reversing out. That would stop a lot of accidents.

Until then backing in, especially in very busy sports like sports practice and areas with a lot of kids. Backing into the space is much safer on exit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is zero logic to the "it's safer to back in" argument - there's no visibility gained (only lost) while backing at such angles. It's only safer because the people walking through the parking lot will stop and gawk at the person backing in, thinking "what on earth is this fool doing?"

If you can’t understand how it’s safer to leave a space you backed into, then you must have some sort of spatial awareness disability.

There's a whole other part - arriving and backing into a space. And that is NOT safer, at all.

Dp - of course it is. As you are preparing to back in you have full visibility of the driving/walking. The odds of someone walking between cars is close to zero. If you have backed into a spot you have the same level of visibility as you pull out, which you do not have if you pull in because you’re positioned at the last part of the car to gain visibility.

Enhanced Safety When Exiting:
When backing into a spot, you can exit forward, offering a wider view of surrounding traffic and pedestrians. This is particularly helpful when unloading passengers or children.
Reduced Blind Spots:
By backing into the space, you minimize the blind spots you'd have when exiting, as you're facing forward.
Efficient Space Utilization:
Back-in angled parking can save space compared to traditional parallel parking, as discussed in a Capital One article.
Faster Maneuvering:
Some argue that backing in can be faster, especially in tight spaces, because the steering is less constrained by the parking space's boundaries.
Parking Lot Layout Considerations:
Back-in parking can be more efficient in parking lots where angled parking is common

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like ignants at DMV, AAA and AARP are to blame. Technically, because it's harder to enter a confined space, you should nose into it with fullest vision, and then backout into larger space with lesser limited vision.

This is what Dr. Gridlock always said too. And he was a doctor.

I noticed at Chantilly public library like half the cars had backed in. Strange..

It sounds like ignants at DMV, AAA and AARP are to blame. Technically, because it's harder to enter a confined space, you should nose into it with fullest vision, and then backout into larger space with lesser limited vision.

I was recently at a big parking lot that had signs saying that backing in was prohibited. This lot did have plenty of space to back out into so there was that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There have been tons of studies by fire organizations ans the NHTSA saying that backing in is much safer and should be mandated.

Fire and police are required to back in.

Back up cameras were mandated on new vehicles during the Obama administration because statistics showed pedestrians were getting hurt when people were backing out of spaces. As opposed to mandating parking be built better and forced backing in the administration required new car manufacturers to install cameras.

Complete and utter lies and BS.

Drivers who back into spaces do so because they’re too dumb to back up out of a space. So they back in instead. They do it because they’re sh*tty drivers it has nothing to do with safety. Think about it.

I have to say as a person with a small car often parked next to a huge car it is more difficult to back out.

I like it when I can pull forward into a spot and get the benefit of pulling out without having to back in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Over the last few years, I’ve seen more and more people backing into parking spaces. Back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, as they try to line up their giant vehicles making everyone else wait forever.

Why don’t people just pull into a space??

Because they lack the driving skills to back out of a parking space?
Because they love to zoom out when they drive off?
Because they like to make a big production and stop traffic?
Because they believe that is the best way to park, no matter how long it takes?
Because they are aholes?
etc.
etc...

Np I don't think either way makes you an Ahole. Either way you have to wait. Where are you going that you can't spare 5 minutes?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is zero logic to the "it's safer to back in" argument - there's no visibility gained (only lost) while backing at such angles. It's only safer because the people walking through the parking lot will stop and gawk at the person backing in, thinking "what on earth is this fool doing?"

If you can’t understand how it’s safer to leave a space you backed into, then you must have some sort of spatial awareness disability.

There's a whole other part - arriving and backing into a space. And that is NOT safer, at all.

I drive a large SUV. The back of my car has a tighter/shorter/smaller turning radius than the front.

In short, it takes me less space to back into a parking space than it does to pull in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There have been tons of studies by fire organizations ans the NHTSA saying that backing in is much safer and should be mandated.

Fire and police are required to back in.

Back up cameras were mandated on new vehicles during the Obama administration because statistics showed pedestrians were getting hurt when people were backing out of spaces. As opposed to mandating parking be built better and forced backing in the administration required new car manufacturers to install cameras.

Huh? I had 2 vehicles that were built in the U.S. during the Obama administration, and neither came with a backup camera.

It’s not hard to use the Google Machine to look things up before you make yourself look ignorant.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/05/02/backup-cameras-now-required-in-new-cars-in-the-us.html

Anonymous wrote:There is zero logic to the "it's safer to back in" argument - there's no visibility gained (only lost) while backing at such angles. It's only safer because the people walking through the parking lot will stop and gawk at the person backing in, thinking "what on earth is this fool doing?"

If you can’t understand how it’s safer to leave a space you backed into, then you must have some sort of spatial awareness disability.

There is zero logic to the "it's safer to back in" argument - there's no visibility gained (only lost) while backing at such angles. It's only safer because the people walking through the parking lot will stop and gawk at the person backing in, thinking "what on earth is this fool doing?"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There have been tons of studies by fire organizations ans the NHTSA saying that backing in is much safer and should be mandated.

Fire and police are required to back in.

Back up cameras were mandated on new vehicles during the Obama administration because statistics showed pedestrians were getting hurt when people were backing out of spaces. As opposed to mandating parking be built better and forced backing in the administration required new car manufacturers to install cameras.

Complete and utter lies and BS.

Drivers who back into spaces do so because they’re too dumb to back up out of a space. So they back in instead. They do it because they’re sh*tty drivers it has nothing to do with safety. Think about it.

There you have! The unsupported authority has spoken! It is over! (Is your name Trump perchance?)

And you bringing politics into a non political thread completely shows your TDS and stupidity.
Even if I agree with most of your post.