Posted By Paul Bellis I can speak from a personal point of view. I reversed out of a car parking space into the path of an oncomming speeding vehicle. It was a private car park. By the time I was in a position to see the vehicle approaching, and tried to pull back into the space - it was too late, the car collided with my rear end. Due to the speed involved there was extensive damage, so insurance companies became involved. It was held that I was to blame due to the fact I reversed out of the space rather than reversed in, which would have enabled me to be able to pull out safely with better visability. The fact the other car was speeding, and the fact that EVERBODY in the car park was also facing inwards made no difference - so from an insurance point of view - reverse in if possible.

Posted By Richard The most important reason is fire. If you have a serious fire and all vehicles have to be moved, think of 200+ vehicles all reversing and manoeuvring (it may be dark and wet), and think of 200 vehicles just driving straight out and joining an orderly queue. No contest! Richard

Posted By Jim Walker Graham's driving instructor seems to have the right idea. Incidentally (might help you "sell" the issue"). My old uncle was an Army driver (El Alemien etc)he says they were taught to reverse in, as it is fuel efficent - all the flaffing about, whilst the engine and gear box were hot.

Posted By Ken Lucas I certainly believe reverse parking is safer, where practical, however the supermarket issue is certainly an interesting one, which brings me to a light-hearted point, it certainly isn't safer if you're anywhere when my missus is driving. She is to reversing what Zsa Zsa Gabor is to monogomy - anyway I've decided to put in a control measure and have those new "gizmos" fitted to the bumper that emit an alarm sound when you are within a certain distance of an object and reversing/parking. What's the betting trees and walls will still apparently jump out at her? Happy New Year all Ken

Posted By Keith Clarke As Graham has observed the replies are moving off into other areas. My original request, and perhaps I did not make it as clear as I could have. In our industry it is often mandatory, when visiting clients or other related companies, to reverse park your car for "safety reasons". I was asked to substantiate that reverse parking is safer, with hard not anecdotal evidence, because of the potential for litigation. If we were to insist on our employees reverse park their cars and there was some incident which could be associated with our insistance to reverse park, the company might be held in someway liable unless it our reasoning could be substantiated. After other research it does in fact appear there is no hard evidence available. Thanks to all who have contributed so far. Keith

Posted By John Ridd An important point (raised above) is the need to recognise that different people have difficulty with different aspects of driving (or anything else,for that matter) and it is not always a male female split. To assume a directive that everyone should park in a particular way will improve safety (even if research evidence supports it) doesn't mean that in your situation, you will find the same result. An enquiry to the Transport Research Laboratories (TRL) at Crowthorne might be worth trying. Although most arguments must support reverse parking for the reasons stated, there is one (but I think a very different) aspect of safety in this context that argues against reverse parking - this is where the parking spaces are against a building and where exhaust fumes are easily taken in through open windows of the building.

Posted By Jim Sweetman Happy New Year to everyone. This is certainly an interesting thread to start the New Year! I certainly have no difficulty in agreeing with what has been said so far. My personal preference is to reverse in, with the exception of supermarkets, where I need clear access for loading. I was once told 'never get into a situation unless you can get out of it twice as fast'- reverse in then drive out. I won't be a hypocrite and say that I reverse in all of the time, as there may be times when I'm in a hurry and just 'dump' the car. However, this does not answer the request for hard evidence. John Ridd alludes to a point that hasn't been picked up by others - health risks of fumes and windows/vents etc. Some buildings/establishments have specific rules which ban vehicles parking with rear end to the building. In parking spaces away from the buildings, this instruction may not apply. There is also an element of security, some buildings/establishments insist on cars being parked front-in so that no vehicle can move off quickly - they think that there are some dishonest people about! Maybe the question should be about driving standards rather than home in on parking? I wish you luck on your endeavours, certainly as you may be looking at asking people to change lifetime habits. My personal opinion is that you will not find anything concrete to use, but may find sufficient anecdotal (unwanted?)evidence to convince someone to make a policy decision. Regards Jim

Posted By George Wedgwood Yes, it is a good debate and I have also learned a few things! I am fortunate to drive a car fitted with forward and reverse proximity sensors - both bleep with increasing frequency as the car closes in on a near object (about 2.5 metres to start with - and the bleeps sound continuously once the bumper is about0.5 metre away from an object. This is a great benefit when reversing and comes on automatically once reverse gear has been selected. It will also sound when the edges of the bumper are approached. I think all cars should have this and I have specified such sensors on all future Company mobile plant, once we can get the manufacturers to consider the design. One think puzzled me, however, as I approach a fixed object when driving into a parking space, the bleeper does not cut in automatically - you have to remember to select it! Hence I came to the conclusion that the manufacturers want you to reverse park! Happy parking, George

Posted By Jack So its ok for someone with a lack of rear visibility to reverse out of a parking space where there may be pedestrians! But I agree with you. We shouldn't have to be so prescriptive about something like this. There will always be times when it is best to break the 'rule'. Perhaps the employer should suggest staff generally park this way after explaining why it is probably safer? Jack

Posted By Richard Sorry about the delay in answering the replies to my previous response. I would certainly not advocate anyone moving their vehicle during a fire, but we live in a real world with real people. You get a fire alarm at 4.15 on a Friday afternoon, with no obvious sign of smoke and flame, and people will be moving their cars, no matter what your procedures say about "keeping vehicular movement to a minimum"!! You will get the same if people think their car is in danger - people do silly things - ask a firefighter. Incidentally, no matter whether we are parked at work or in a supermarket, isn't there something about not reversing into a traffic stream? Richard

Posted By Bob Youel why don't you use the other companies you quote as examples and pick their brains as to the reasons they adopted the car parking policy

Posted By Graham Bullough I thought various reasons which supported reverse parking were given in early responses to this thread. Warren's comments about forward parking seem to assume that all drivers in car parks are nice, courteous and keep their speed down. However, in reality you'll always tend to get impatient, inconsiderate sods like the one described by Paul Bellis on 30.12.02. Various reasons have also been given as to why people generally dislike reversing - including the fact too many vehicles are designed with little regard for the need for drivers to reverse at times. Also, people vary in their height, size and ability to twist their torsos while sitting, etc. Vehicle designers generally don't seem to care about these issues. I suspect that some drivers will forward park into parking spaces because they dislike reversing or find it difficult, and are merely putting it off until they come to leave and then have no option but to reverse out. In addition to car design and ergonomics, the narrow width of parking bays in many car parks is a factor which influences drivers. Sadly, space for parking is usually at a premium otherwise it would be great to have decent size spaces or, in an ideal world, have spacious car parks designed with bays which eliminate the need for any reversing. At supermarket car parks maintaining access for trolleys to car boots is a major factor. However, at other car parks with narrow bays it would be great if drivers could be persuaded to alternately reverse and forward park! This system would involve only a small gap between adjacent nearsides of cars and allow a larger gap between adjacent offsides which could be shared by 2 drivers to enable them to effectively open their doors and get in and out of their cars more easily! However, for various reasons, there's not much chance of this system being followed - except at workplaces with a relatively small number of staff who regularly use a small car park with tight bays and may readily perceive the benefit if they try it. Does anyone know of places where alternating forward and reverse parking is put into practice?