Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Keith Clarke
An employee has suggested we adopt a policy which would require personnel to reverse their cars into spaces in our car park. This has been largely adopted by other companies in our industry as the safer method.
To gain full management backing I have been asked to supply hard evidence that it is in fact safer. I have searched for such evidence but to no avail, so is this a myth that has been cast in stone?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Graham Bullough
Reverse parking was something my instructor advised when I had driving lessons in the 1970's. The reasons for this were: 1. You generally have better visibility as a driver reversing into a parking space than trying to reverse out of it. 2. You can perform the manoeuvre more precisely and in a significantly smaller space by using the turnability of your vehicle's front wheels. 3. As you have "possession" of the roadway outside the parking space, your vehicle and its movements should be more evident to other drivers.
This advice made sense and I've followed it ever since for car parks and also for parking in driveways at home and elsewhere. With an easier and better view of any other vehicles, it also tends to be quicker to drive forwards out of a parking space or driveway than reverse out, especially in the dark or during adverse weather conditions. Also I've noticed over the years that lorry drivers usually reverse into tight spaces or where they have limited space for making a turn. Thus, your employee's suggestion has merit.
However, even if you can persuade managers, you'll still need to persuade vehicle users about the benefits of reverse parking - and probably won't be fully successful - as you're trying to get people to change an ingrained habit! In any event, though reverse parking is good practice, there don't seem to be sufficient grounds for making it obligatory. This shows the perversity of the thinking by the insurance companies involved in Paul Bellis's experience.
Some other thoughts stem from this topic: Is there any recommended width for car parking bays? If there is and it is heeded by supermarkets, why do most of their bays seem too narrow in relation to the width of modern cars, the need to open the doors of such cars and the inability of some drivers to park reasonably straight? Another thought is that some cars are designed with little or no thought for the sight lines needed by drivers while reversing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Geoff Burt
Richard
It is difficult for me to believe you seriously meant to say that 'in the event of a serious fire drivers would be asked to enter their cars and drive off in an orderly fashion'.
Far better to evacuate people to a safe place.
Cars can be replaced.
Geoff
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Arran Linton - Smith
When recently on a defensive driving course I was encouraged to reverse into a car par place, but other than the greater manoeuvrability through the use of the front wheels behind the rear ones, it was never identified as being safer, just more efficient.
If reverse parking was applied to supermarket car parks, whilst the majority of drivers may not have a problem adapting to this style of parking, there is a small majority who may struggle to reverse their cars into a tight space and have difficulty in judging reversing distances. Also if reverse parking was adapted here, there would need to be space set aside for trolley access to the boot of the car and we could experience further delays whilst waiting for some drivers to gingerly reverse into a vacant parking spot. I also anticipate a higher level of vehicle damage here.
As the turnover of most large supermarkets relies on the size and turnover of their car parks (particularly at peak times), it is unlikely that we will be encouraged to adapt to this type of parking.
I have looked, but I cannot find any research to identify what method of parking is safer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Graham Bullough
Keith - your query was clearly about aspects which can support/encourage reverse parking by staff at a workplace car park.
To avoid any confusion my comment about the width of bays in supermarket car parks in my earlier response was a subsidiary one and should not be read as advocating reverse parking at supermarkets. The limited width of the bays and the need to get trolleys adjacent to car boots means that front parking at supermarkets is better during busy periods- especially to avoid cars being scraped by trolleys!
As for the response about the fire aspect - presumably a fire affecting a car in a car park, I concur with Geoff Burt's comments. In addition, surely a mass exodus of drivers (can't imagine it could ever be an "orderly" one) would seriously hinder any feasible attempt by the fire brigade to get to and deal with the car on fire.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By George Wedgwood
The obvious technical arguments for parking safely have been mostly made well, but considering the detailed geometry of the car shows us that it is easier to 'tail-end' steer when moving very slowly into a limited space since the steered wheels will follow the direction of the fixed wheels without too much effort. However, the most important feature is of course, behaviour. This can be cultured by good training and most prganisations will teach reverse parking for safety but women dislike it mainly because of their reduced height on average and the difficulty in turning round to secure full visibility to the rear. 'Mirror' reverse parking is alo difficult for some due to the eye-brain coordination change required. So making people change their habits is difficult and will increase incidents. Securing their partnership in a coordinated effort to improve their skills may work better. A competition could be organised by a competent provider to raise such awareness and actually train people to reverse more safely.
The main point I consider when reversing to park, as I always do at home, is the way you may behave when driving off later or the next morning, when awareness may be a little impaired! It is certainly safer to drive straight out than to attempt reversing on a dark morning. Then again, some may argue that to reverse, you need heightened awarenss and you will take more care!
I think the answer is to have angled parking bays and let everyone drive straight in and reverse out as many council parking bays have. I never consider reversing into those as it is next to impossible!
I wonder what RoSPA has to say on the subject?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Edward H
Something hints to me that you are all missing the simple.
All of the published guidance and accident analysis [search on HSE site] supports the conclusion that reversing is much more risky than travelling forward; and that the key to accident reduction is to exclude pedestrians or moving vehicles from the reversing "area". Assuming that the parking arrangements would be either back against a barrier [wall, hedge, kerbline] or back to another vehicle then it would appear self-evident that there will be a much lower risk of finding a pedestrian/ moving vehicle in the parking space that finding one in the access road; therefore reverse in drive out...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ken Taylor
I don't think there are any statistics to prove this argument as most officially recorded accidents take place when vehicles are moving forward on public highways and persons are injured. Perhaps the insurers could enlighten us as they will receive information from claims asociated with parking manoeuvres and the like? Whilst the geometry of the car better suits reversing into confined areas, humans seem to find it more dificult to perform in that direction. I'm glad that the incentive to load the boot favours forward entry in supermarket car-parks as, judging by the standard of driving frequently displayed by shoppers, a lot more vehicle damage would be likely if reverse entry was the norm. Reversing out of the parking space generaly leaves more room for manoeuvre and, sometimes, may be the only method possible where the rows of cars are too close together for forward exit. Unfortunately this does put passing pedestrians and vehicles at greater risk. Perhaps case-specific risk assessment is the best approach here - if only based upon behavioural and environmental factors without the benefit of statistics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Warren Stocks
I have read the responses with great interest as my own company has just introduced a reverse parking policy. Whatever you/we do, it should be based upon sound risk assessment principles & Near Miss incidences. Something my company did'nt do but that's another story (Don't get me started!!)
My point is that everything posted so far is based upon personal opinion. A blanket policy cannot serve all people, as not all (legally) competent drivers are as competent as others. I often prefer to reverse park, whereas my wife does not due to lack of rear visibility. Whereas I sometimes drive into a space to allow me to get to the car boot. A blanket policy would prevent this & add additional hazards.
Whilst no definitive source of information appears to exist, having done some background work sometime ago with a well known international car parking company, & my then local council, there was very little to indicate that, whatever the advantages, reverse parking was any safer.
It is interesting to note that with all the HSE regulation constantly thrust upon us – that within some companies – car parking is given such high priority.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ian Mycroft
Just to put a different slant on all this, has anyone thought of adopting a policy of encouraging their staff to use public transport to get to work rather than their cars. In South Yorkshire help can be obtained from the Passenger Transport Executive, Travel Option Planning Service (TOPS) dept. and other executives might have a similar dept. There are environmental benefits to this option also.
Ian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By George Wedgwood
I have just visited Marks and Spencer's new(ish) store in North Warrington's Retail Park and found that all car park spaces are marked out at angles, with clear notices to 'drive in and reverse out'. I tried it and it worked very well! They have clearly thought it was a good customer safety improvement. Regards, George
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Warren Stocks
I have thought a bit more on this & would like to present the case for the defense of reverses parking to see what others think.
Drivers spend about 99.9% of their time driving forward. The whole design – including safety features - of the car takes this into consideration.
Therefore, it follows that it has to be simpler, & thereby safer, to drive forward into a space. Especially when the space will often be narrow, in shadow, with obstacles, where other doors can open without warning, poor rear visibility, etc. This is apart from the back-to-front car controls which often lead to a lack of coordination
So, we could say that it would be safer to drive into a space so the hazard moves to leaving the space.
This entails reversing into a car park system, not into moving traffic, & is infinitely controllable (i.e.; reduced speed limits, one way systems, etc.). Also, it should be easier to reverse out of a confined space into larger access lane. Thus reducing the chance of collision. Moreover, almost all cars now on the road are fitted with reversing lights so anyone driving within the car park lane will easily see cars about to reverse. Giving priority to all reversing cars, & throw in some angled (Herringbone type) parking spaces, may make for a much safer car park.
I’ll leave it to someone else to put the case for reverse parking!
Regards, Warren
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.