Parallel parking
 

In the old days where you could see and judge the front and back of cars
like my full sized 1968 Ford Galaxy 500, I could parallel park with full
confidendence given a space clearance as little as 2 inches. (Takes forever
to get in and out but I could park that sucker) With the newer cars, like my
son's compact Honda, where I couldn't see where the front or the back of the
car ends, I'm hasitant to parallel park even with clear space of 2 feet.
Wondering if its just me and getting too old?

Re: Parallel parking
 

On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:15:59 -0700, " Frank"
<noreplay@nothome.net> wrote:

>In the old days where you could see and judge the front and back of cars
>like my full sized 1968 Ford Galaxy 500, I could parallel park with full
>confidendence given a space clearance as little as 2 inches. (Takes forever
>to get in and out but I could park that sucker) With the newer cars, like my
>son's compact Honda, where I couldn't see where the front or the back of the
>car ends, I'm hasitant to parallel park even with clear space of 2 feet.
>Wondering if its just me and getting too old?

you and me, brother.

but the Honda Accords, at least, have always had terrible turning
radius, that doesn't help either.

Don't worry, it'll all be automated in a few years, like in the new
Lexus. Few years after that, car will drive itself home automagically
while you sleep.

J.

Re: Parallel parking
 

Waiving the right to remain silent, JXStern <JXSternChangeX2R@gte.net>
said:

> On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:15:59 -0700, " Frank"
><noreplay@nothome.net> wrote:
>
>>In the old days where you could see and judge the front and back of cars
>>like my full sized 1968 Ford Galaxy 500, I could parallel park with full
>>confidendence given a space clearance as little as 2 inches. (Takes
>>forever to get in and out but I could park that sucker) With the newer
>>cars, like my son's compact Honda, where I couldn't see where the front
>>or the back of the car ends, I'm hasitant to parallel park even with
>>clear space of 2 feet. Wondering if its just me and getting too old?
>
> you and me, brother.
>
> but the Honda Accords, at least, have always had terrible turning
> radius, that doesn't help either.
>
> Don't worry, it'll all be automated in a few years, like in the new
> Lexus. Few years after that, car will drive itself home automagically
> while you sleep.

Yeah, right... And we'll all have those air-cars and the jet packs
they've been promising for forty years. ;-)

--
Larry J. - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail

"A lack of common sense is now considered a disability,
with all the privileges that this entails."

Re: Parallel parking
 

" Frank" <noreplay@nothome.net> wrote in message
news:AMidnSRv0oz3t2zanZ2dnUVZ_h6hnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> In the old days where you could see and judge the front and back of cars
> like my full sized 1968 Ford Galaxy 500, I could parallel park with full
> confidendence given a space clearance as little as 2 inches. (Takes
> forever to get in and out but I could park that sucker) With the newer
> cars, like my son's compact Honda, where I couldn't see where the front or
> the back of the car ends, I'm hasitant to parallel park even with clear
> space of 2 feet. Wondering if its just me and getting too old?
Just glue some big tail fins to that puppy and you'll be all right. (wink)

Re: Parallel parking
 

"Just Me" <justme@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kaWdnVs8us87-WzanZ2dnUVZ_tGonZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> " Frank" <noreplay@nothome.net> wrote in message
> news:AMidnSRv0oz3t2zanZ2dnUVZ_h6hnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>> In the old days where you could see and judge the front and back of cars
>> like my full sized 1968 Ford Galaxy 500, I could parallel park with full
>> confidendence given a space clearance as little as 2 inches. (Takes
>> forever to get in and out but I could park that sucker) With the newer
>> cars, like my son's compact Honda, where I couldn't see where the front
>> or the back of the car ends, I'm hasitant to parallel park even with
>> clear space of 2 feet. Wondering if its just me and getting too old?
> Just glue some big tail fins to that puppy and you'll be all right.
> (wink)

Place a big empty box and find the 'point of no return'.

Re: Parallel parking
 

On Mar 31, 2:15 pm, " Frank" <norep...@nothome.net> wrote:
> Wondering if its just me and getting too old?

Hate to say this but my 20-something daughter parks her '99 Accord as
easily as I used to park my '66 Chevy.

Re: Parallel parking
 

Frank wrote:
> In the old days where you could see and judge the front and back of cars
> like my full sized 1968 Ford Galaxy 500, I could parallel park with full
> confidendence given a space clearance as little as 2 inches. (Takes forever
> to get in and out but I could park that sucker) With the newer cars, like my
> son's compact Honda, where I couldn't see where the front or the back of the
> car ends, I'm hasitant to parallel park even with clear space of 2 feet.
> Wondering if its just me and getting too old?

------------------------

Always park in front of stores that have large windows. Watch your
reflection and the car in front / behind.

:-)

Works for me.

Re: Parallel parking
 

Frank wrote:
> In the old days where you could see and judge the front and back of cars
> like my full sized 1968 Ford Galaxy 500, I could parallel park with full
> confidendence given a space clearance as little as 2 inches. (Takes forever
> to get in and out but I could park that sucker) With the newer cars, like my
> son's compact Honda, where I couldn't see where the front or the back of the
> car ends, I'm hasitant to parallel park even with clear space of 2 feet.
> Wondering if its just me and getting too old?
>
>


When you "park-by-touch", as many do, it matters little...

Re: Parallel parking
 

"News" <News@Group.name> wrote in message
news:yq-dnamNgpBSEWzanZ2dnUVZ_tbinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>
>
> Frank wrote:
>> In the old days where you could see and judge the front and back of cars
>> like my full sized 1968 Ford Galaxy 500, I could parallel park with full
>> confidendence given a space clearance as little as 2 inches. (Takes
>> forever to get in and out but I could park that sucker) With the newer
>> cars, like my son's compact Honda, where I couldn't see where the front
>> or the back of the car ends, I'm hasitant to parallel park even with
>> clear space of 2 feet. Wondering if its just me and getting too old?
>
>
> When you "park-by-touch", as many do, it matters little...

And in 1968 you could park by touch with little fear of leaving a dent. Even
a casual brush these days can cause thousands in damage.

BTW, 30 years ago I could parallel park my 36' motor home a lot easier than
I can parallel park any of the 4 cars I drive today. Part of it is age, part
of it is lack of practice. Most places I go these days have parking slots or
valets.

Re: Parallel parking
 

"Zeppo" <zeppo_m@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:65et8oF2g00f5U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "News" <News@Group.name> wrote in message
> news:yq-dnamNgpBSEWzanZ2dnUVZ_tbinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>
>>
>> Frank wrote:
>>> In the old days where you could see and judge the front and back of cars
>>> like my full sized 1968 Ford Galaxy 500, I could parallel park with full
>>> confidendence given a space clearance as little as 2 inches. (Takes
>>> forever to get in and out but I could park that sucker) With the newer
>>> cars, like my son's compact Honda, where I couldn't see where the front
>>> or the back of the car ends, I'm hasitant to parallel park even with
>>> clear space of 2 feet. Wondering if its just me and getting too old?
>>
>>
>> When you "park-by-touch", as many do, it matters little...
>
> And in 1968 you could park by touch with little fear of leaving a dent.
> Even a casual brush these days can cause thousands in damage.
>
> BTW, 30 years ago I could parallel park my 36' motor home a lot easier
> than I can parallel park any of the 4 cars I drive today. Part of it is
> age, part of it is lack of practice. Most places I go these days have
> parking slots or valets.
>

Back in the 60s, American car bumpers are heave duty steel, perhaps about
3/16" thick. 5 mph bumper crash, no problem. 5mph bumper crash on new cars,
maybe over $10,000 in damages.

Re: Parallel parking
 

>>> When you "park-by-touch", as many do, it matters little...
>>
>> And in 1968 you could park by touch with little fear of leaving a dent.
>> Even a casual brush these days can cause thousands in damage.
>>
>> BTW, 30 years ago I could parallel park my 36' motor home a lot easier
>> than I can parallel park any of the 4 cars I drive today. Part of it is
>> age, part of it is lack of practice. Most places I go these days have
>> parking slots or valets.
>>
>
> Back in the 60s, American car bumpers are heave duty steel, perhaps about
> 3/16" thick. 5 mph bumper crash, no problem. 5mph bumper crash on new
> cars, maybe over $10,000 in damages.
I had a '71 New Yorker that had a bumper that was the entire back of the
car. I was rear-ended by a '78 Buick doing about 25 mph. It left a 2" dent
in the center of my bumper that was not even worth fixing.

If that same car had rear-ended my '06 Accord, it would be totaled and I'd
have been hurting.

Jon

Re: Parallel parking
 

Zeppo wrote:
>>>> When you "park-by-touch", as many do, it matters little...
>>> And in 1968 you could park by touch with little fear of leaving a dent.
>>> Even a casual brush these days can cause thousands in damage.
>>>
>>> BTW, 30 years ago I could parallel park my 36' motor home a lot easier
>>> than I can parallel park any of the 4 cars I drive today. Part of it is
>>> age, part of it is lack of practice. Most places I go these days have
>>> parking slots or valets.
>>>
>> Back in the 60s, American car bumpers are heave duty steel, perhaps about
>> 3/16" thick. 5 mph bumper crash, no problem. 5mph bumper crash on new
>> cars, maybe over $10,000 in damages.
> I had a '71 New Yorker that had a bumper that was the entire back of the
> car. I was rear-ended by a '78 Buick doing about 25 mph. It left a 2" dent
> in the center of my bumper that was not even worth fixing.
>
> If that same car had rear-ended my '06 Accord, it would be totaled and I'd
> have been hurting.
>
> Jon
>
>

i wouldn't bet on that.

http://bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTe...perVsFordF150/

what's important is that the passenger cell doesn't collapse. 70's
detroit may take the small knocks, but for the big stuff, it only good
at making hamburgers.

Re: Parallel parking
 

On 2008-04-02, Zeppo <zeppo_m@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I had a '71 New Yorker that had a bumper that was the entire back of the
> car. I was rear-ended by a '78 Buick doing about 25 mph. It left a 2" dent
> in the center of my bumper that was not even worth fixing.
>
> If that same car had rear-ended my '06 Accord, it would be totaled and I'd
> have been hurting.

Not quite. The car would likely be seriously damaged at the least, but
you'd likely walk away without a scratch.

And in a serious crash, the old detroit steel wouldn't hold a candle
to the new cars. You're much safer in a modern car.


--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X

Re: Parallel parking
 

Joe wrote:
> On 2008-04-02, Zeppo <zeppo_m@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I had a '71 New Yorker that had a bumper that was the entire back of the
>>car. I was rear-ended by a '78 Buick doing about 25 mph. It left a 2" dent
>>in the center of my bumper that was not even worth fixing.
>>
>>If that same car had rear-ended my '06 Accord, it would be totaled and I'd
>>have been hurting.
>
>
> Not quite. The car would likely be seriously damaged at the least, but
> you'd likely walk away without a scratch.
>
> And in a serious crash, the old detroit steel wouldn't hold a candle
> to the new cars. You're much safer in a modern car.
>
>


That may be so but in so doing, modern engineering may have defeated the
Darwin principle. The result, a dumber society.

Yes, Walt Kelly was right... "We have met the enemy and he is us."

JT

Re: Parallel parking
 

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
news:m-qdnQUQP8STH27anZ2dnUVZ_sCtnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Zeppo wrote:
>>>>> When you "park-by-touch", as many do, it matters little...
>>>> And in 1968 you could park by touch with little fear of leaving a dent.
>>>> Even a casual brush these days can cause thousands in damage.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, 30 years ago I could parallel park my 36' motor home a lot easier
>>>> than I can parallel park any of the 4 cars I drive today. Part of it is
>>>> age, part of it is lack of practice. Most places I go these days have
>>>> parking slots or valets.
>>>>
>>> Back in the 60s, American car bumpers are heave duty steel, perhaps
>>> about 3/16" thick. 5 mph bumper crash, no problem. 5mph bumper crash on
>>> new cars, maybe over $10,000 in damages.
>> I had a '71 New Yorker that had a bumper that was the entire back of the
>> car. I was rear-ended by a '78 Buick doing about 25 mph. It left a 2"
>> dent in the center of my bumper that was not even worth fixing.
>>
>> If that same car had rear-ended my '06 Accord, it would be totaled and
>> I'd have been hurting.
>>
>> Jon
>
> i wouldn't bet on that.
>
> http://bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTe...perVsFordF150/
>
> what's important is that the passenger cell doesn't collapse. 70's
> detroit may take the small knocks, but for the big stuff, it only good at
> making hamburgers.


This only indicate crashes into immovable objects like a tree or a 1,000 ton
boulder. A train wouldn't do too well either crashing into a 1,000 ton
boulder as compared to a Mini Cooper but a head on crash between a Cooper
and a train, I'll take a train, or even a F-150, any time.